{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34698/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34698","id":"gutenberg_34698","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34698","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Science"],"text":"Page numbers enclosed by curly braces (example: {25}) have been\nincorporated to facilitate the use of the Table of Contents.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nESSAYS\n\nUPON SOME\n\nCONTROVERTED QUESTIONS\n\n\n\nBY\n\nTHOMAS H. HUXLEY, F.R.S.\n\n\n\nLondon\nMACMILLAN AND CO.\nAND NEW YORK\n1892\n\n_All rights reserved_\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{v}\n\nCONTENTS\n\n  PROLOGUE                                                           Page 1\n\n  I\n\n  THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF PALAEONTOLOGY\n\n  An Address delivered at the York Meeting of the British Association\n  for the Advancement of Science, 1881                                   55\n\n  II\n\n  THE INTERPRETERS OF GENESIS AND THE INTERPRETERS OF\n  NATURE\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, December 1885                                    75\n\n  III\n\n  MR GLADSTONE AND GENESIS\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, February 1886                                    98\n\n  _Note on the proper sense of the \"Mosaic\" narrative of the Creation_  126\n\n  IV\n\n  THE EVOLUTION OF THEOLOGY: AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDY\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, March and April 1886                            131\n\n  V\n\n  SCIENCE AND MORALS\n\n  _Fortnightly Review_, November 1886                                   209\n\n  {vi}\n  VI\n\n  SCIENTIFIC AND PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC REALISM\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, February 1887                                   237\n\n  VII\n\n  SCIENCE AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, April 1887                                      265\n\n  VIII\n\n  AN EPISCOPAL TRILOGY\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, November 1887                                   298\n\n  IX\n\n  AGNOSTICISM\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, February 1889                                   329\n\n  X\n\n  THE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, March 1889                                      378\n\n  XI\n\n  AGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, April 1889                                      407\n\n  XII\n\n  AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, June 1889                                       449\n\n  XIII\n\n  THE LIGHTS OF THE CHURCH AND THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, July 1890                                       501\n\n  {vii}\n  XIV\n\n  THE KEEPERS OF THE HERD OF SWINE\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, December 1890                                   535\n\n  XV\n\n  ILLUSTRATIONS OF MR. GLADSTONE'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, March 1891                                      559\n\n  XVI\n\n  HASISADRA'S ADVENTURE\n\n  _Nineteenth Century_, June 1891                                       583\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{viii}\n\nI am indebted to the Editors of the _Nineteenth Century_ and of the\n_Fortnightly Review_ for permission to reprint such of the following Essays\nas have appeared in the pages of those periodicals: and so large a\nproportion of the papers has been published in the _Nineteenth Century_\nthat my acknowledgments are especially due to Mr. Knowles.\n\n  T. H. H.\n\n  _May 4, 1892._\n\n       *       *       *       *       * {1}\n\n\nPROLOGUE\n\n    Le plus grand service qu'on puisse rendre a la science est d'y faire\n    place nette avant d'y rien construire.--CUVIER.\n\nMost of the Essays comprised in the present volume have been written during\nthe last six or seven years, without premeditated purpose or intentional\nconnection, in reply to attacks upon doctrines which I hold to be well\nfounded; or in refutation of allegations respecting matters lying within\nthe province of natural knowledge, which I believe to be erroneous; and\nthey bear the mark of their origin in the controversial tone which pervades\nthem.\n\nOf polemical writing, as of other kinds of warfare, I think it may be said,\nthat it is often useful, sometimes necessary, and always more or less of an\nevil. It is useful, when it attracts attention to topics which might\notherwise be neglected; and when, as does sometimes happen, those who come\nto see a contest remain to think. It is necessary, when the interests of\ntruth and of justice are at stake. It is an evil, in so far as controversy\nalways tends to degenerate into quarrelling, to swerve from the great issue\nof what is right and what is wrong to the very small question {2} of who is\nright and who is wrong. I venture to hope that the useful and the necessary\nwere more conspicuous than the evil attributes of literary militancy, when\nthese papers were first published; but I have had some hesitation about\nreprinting them. If I may judge by my own taste, few literary dishes are\nless appetising than cold controversy; moreover, there is an air of\nunfairness about the presentation of only one side of a discussion, and a\nflavour of unkindness in the reproduction of \"winged words,\" which, however\nappropriate at the time of their utterance, would find a still more\nappropriate place in oblivion. Yet, since I could hardly ask those who have\nhonoured me by their polemical attentions to confer lustre on this\ncollection, by permitting me to present their lucubrations along with my\nown; and since it would be a manifest wrong to them to deprive their, by no\nmeans rare, vivacities of language of such justification as they may derive\nfrom similar freedoms on my part; I came to the conclusion that my best\ncourse was to leave the essays just as they were written;[1] assuring my\nhonourable adversaries that any heat of which signs may remain was\ngenerated, in accordance with the law of the conservation of energy, by the\nforce of their own blows, and has long since been dissipated into space.\n\nBut, however the polemical concomitants of these discussions may be\nregarded--or better, {3} disregarded--there is no doubt either about the\nimportance of the topics of which they treat, or as to the public interest\nin the \"Controverted Questions\" with which they deal. Or rather, the\nControverted Question; for disconnected as these pieces may, perhaps,\nappear to be, they are, in fact, concerned only with different aspects of a\nsingle problem, with which thinking men have been occupied, ever since they\nbegan seriously to consider the wonderful frame of things in which their\nlives are set, and to seek for trustworthy 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 seeming\nconfusion, and that many events take place according to unchanging rules.\nTo this region of familiar steadiness and customary regularity they gave\nthe name of Nature. But, at the same time, their infantile and untutored\nreason, little more, as yet, than the playfellow of the imagination, led\nthem to believe that this tangible, commonplace, orderly world of Nature\nwas surrounded and interpenetrated by another intangible and mysterious\nworld, no more bound by fixed rules than, as they fancied, were the\nthoughts and passions which coursed through their minds and seemed to\nexercise an intermittent and capricious rule over their bodies. They\nattributed to the entities, with which they peopled this dim and dreadful\nregion, an unlimited amount of that power of modifying the course of events\nof which they themselves possessed a small share, and thus {4} came to\nregard them as not merely beyond, but above, Nature.\n\nHence arose the conception of a \"Supernature\" antithetic to \"Nature\"--the\nprimitive dualism of a natural world \"fixed in fate\" and a supernatural,\nleft to the free play of volition--which has pervaded all later speculation\nand, for thousands of years, has exercised a profound influence on\npractice. For it is obvious that, on this theory of the Universe, the\nsuccessful conduct of life must demand careful attention to both worlds;\nand, if either is to be neglected, it may be safer that it should be\nNature. In any given contingency, it must doubtless be desirable to know\nwhat may be expected to happen in the ordinary course of things; but it\nmust be quite as necessary to have some inkling of the line likely to be\ntaken by supernatural agencies able, and possibly willing, to suspend or\nreverse that course. Indeed, logically developed, the dualistic theory must\nneeds end in almost exclusive attention to Supernature, and in trust that\nits over-ruling strength will be exerted in favour of those who stand well\nwith its denizens. On the other hand, the lessons of the great\nschoolmaster, experience, have hardly seemed to accord with this\nconclusion. They have taught, with considerable emphasis, that it does not\nanswer to neglect Nature; and that, on the whole, the more attention paid\nto her dictates the better men fare.\n\nThus the theoretical antithesis brought about a practical antagonism. From\nthe earliest times of which we have any knowledge, Naturalism and {5}\nSupernaturalism have consciously, or unconsciously, competed and struggled\nwith one another; and the varying fortunes of the contest are written in\nthe records of the course of civilisation, from those of Egypt and\nBabylonia, 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 Nature,\nthey have been rewarded for their pains. They have developed the Arts which\nhave furnished the conditions of civilised existence; and the Sciences,\nwhich have been a progressive revelation of reality and have afforded the\nbest discipline of the mind in the methods of discovering truth. They have\naccumulated a vast body of universally accepted knowledge; and the\nconceptions of man and of society, of morals and of law, based upon that\nknowledge, are every day more and more, either openly or tacitly,\nacknowledged to be the foundations of right action.\n\nHistory also tells us that the field of the supernatural has rewarded its\ncultivators with a harvest, perhaps not less luxuriant, but of a different\ncharacter. It has produced an almost infinite diversity of Religions.\nThese, if we set aside the ethical concomitants upon which natural\nknowledge also has a claim, are composed of information about Supernature;\nthey tell us of the attributes of supernatural beings, of their relations\nwith Nature, and of the operations by which their interference with the\nordinary course of events can be secured or averted. It does not appear,\nhowever, that supernaturalists have attained {6} to any agreement about\nthese matters, or that history indicates a widening of the influence of\nsupernaturalism on practice, with the onward flow of time. On the contrary,\nthe various religions are, to a great extent, mutually exclusive; and their\nadherents delight in charging each other, not merely with error, but with\ncriminality, deserving an ensuing punishment of infinite severity. In\nsingular contrast with natural knowledge, again, the acquaintance of\nmankind with the supernatural appears the more extensive and the more\nexact, and the influence of supernatural doctrines upon conduct the\ngreater, the further back we go in time and the lower the stage of\ncivilisation submitted to investigation. Historically, indeed, there would\nseem to be an inverse relation between supernatural and natural knowledge.\nAs the 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 the\nregion 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 {7} think not unreasonably, regarded\nas progress, 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\n\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 thing\nto Englishmen. We have been more or less occupied with it these five\nhundred years. And, during that time, we have made attempts to establish a\n_modus vivendi_ between the antagonists, some of which have had a\nworld-wide influence; though, unfortunately, none have proved universally\nand permanently satisfactory.\n\nIn the fourteenth century, the controverted question among us was, whether\ncertain portions of the Supernaturalism of mediaeval Christianity were\nwell-founded. John Wicliff proposed a solution of the problem which, in the\ncourse of the following two hundred years, acquired wide popularity and\nvast historical importance: Lollards, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists,\nZwinglians, Socinians, and Anabaptists, whatever their disagreements,\nconcurred in the proposal to reduce the Supernaturalism of Christianity\nwithin the limits sanctioned by the Scriptures. None of the chiefs of\nProtestantism called in question either the supernatural origin and\ninfallible authority of the Bible, or the exactitude of the account of the\n{8} supernatural world given in its pages. In fact, they could not afford\nto entertain any doubt about these points, since the infallible Bible was\nthe fulcrum of the lever with which they were endeavouring to upset the\nChair of St. Peter. The \"freedom of private judgment\" which they\nproclaimed, meant no more, in practice, than permission to themselves to\nmake free with the public judgment of the Roman Church, in respect of the\ncanon and of the meaning to be attached to the words of the canonical\nbooks. Private judgment--that is to say, reason--was (theoretically, at any\nrate) at liberty to decide what books were and what were not to take the\nrank of \"Scripture\"; and to determine the sense of any passage in such\nbooks. But this sense, once ascertained to the mind of the sectary, was to\nbe taken for pure truth--for the very word of God. The controversial\nefficiency of the principle of biblical infallibility lay in the fact that\nthe conservative adversaries of the Reformers were not in a position to\ncontravene it without entangling themselves in serious difficulties; while,\nsince both Papists and Protestants agreed in taking efficient measures to\nstop the mouths of any more radical critics, these did 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 infallibility\nof the Bible is no more self-evident than is that of the infallibility of\nthe Pope. If the former is held by \"faith,\" then the latter may be. If the\nlatter is {9} to be accepted, or rejected, by private judgment, why not the\nformer? Even if the Bible could be proved anywhere to assert its own\ninfallibility, the value of that self-assertion to those who dispute the\npoint is not obvious. On the other hand, if the infallibility of the Bible\nwas rested on that of a \"primitive Church,\" the admission that the \"Church\"\nwas formerly infallible was awkward in the extreme for those who denied its\npresent infallibility. Moreover, no sooner was the Protestant principle\napplied to practice, than it became evident that even an infallible text,\nwhen manipulated by private judgment, will impartially countenance\ncontradictory deductions; and furnish forth creeds and confessions as\ndiverse as the quality and the information of the intellects which\nexercise, and the prejudices and passions which sway, such judgments. Every\nsect, confident in the derivative infallibility of its wire-drawing of\ninfallible materials, was ready to supply its contingent of martyrs; and to\nenable history, once more, to illustrate the truth, that steadfastness\nunder persecution says much for the sincerity and still more for the\ntenacity, of the believer, but very little for the objective truth of that\nwhich he believes. 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 the\ngerms of the destruction of the finality, which the Lutheran, Calvinistic,\nand other Protestant Churches fondly imagined they had reached. Since their\ncreeds were professedly based {10} on the canonical Scriptures, it followed\nthat, in the long run, whoso settled the canon defined the creed. If the\nprivate judgment of Luther might legitimately conclude that the epistle of\nJames was contemptible, while the epistles of Paul contained the very\nessence of Christianity, it must be permissible for some other private\njudgment, on as good or as bad grounds, to reverse these conclusions; the\ncritical process which excluded the Apocrypha could not be barred, at any\nrate by people who rejected the authority of the Church, from extending its\noperations to Daniel, the Canticles, and Ecclesiastes; nor, having got so\nfar, was it easy to allege any good ground for staying the further progress\nof criticism. In fact, the logical development of Protestantism could not\nfail to lay the authority of the Scriptures at the feet of Reason; and, in\nthe hands of latitudinarian and rationalistic theologians, the despotism of\nthe Bible was rapidly converted into an extremely limited monarchy. Treated\nwith as much respect as ever, the sphere of its practical authority was\nminimised; and its decrees were valid only so far as they were\ncountersigned by common sense, the responsible minister.\n\nThe champions of Protestantism are much given to glorify the Reformation of\nthe sixteenth century as the emancipation of Reason; but it may be doubted\nif their contention has any solid ground; while there is a good deal of\nevidence to show, that aspirations after intellectual freedom had nothing\nwhatever to do with the movement. Dante, who struck the Papacy {11} as hard\nblows as Wicliff; Wicliff himself and Luther himself, when they began their\nwork; were far enough from any intention of meddling with even the most\nirrational of the dogmas of mediaeval Supernaturalism. From Wicliff to\nSocinus, or even to Muenzer, Rothmann, and John of Leyden, I fail to find a\ntrace of any desire to set reason free. The most that can be discovered is\na proposal to change masters. From being the slave of the Papacy the\nintellect was to become the serf of the Bible; or, to speak more\naccurately, of somebody's interpretation of the Bible, which, rapidly\nshifting its attitude from the humility of a private judgment to the\narrogant Caesaro-papistry of a state-enforced creed, had no more hesitation\nabout forcibly extinguishing opponent private judgments and judges, than\nhad the old-fashioned Pontiff-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, essentially,\nan attempt to shake off the intolerable burden of certain practical\ndeductions from a Supernaturalism in which everybody, in principle,\nacquiesced. What was the gain to intellectual freedom of abolishing\ntransubstantiation, image worship, indulgences, ecclesiastical\ninfallibility; if consubstantiation, real-unreal presence mystifications,\nthe bibliolatry, the \"inner-light\" pretensions, and the demonology, which\nare fruits of the same supernaturalistic tree, remained in enjoyment of the\nspiritual and temporal support of a new infallibility? One does not free a\n{12} prisoner by merely scraping away the rust from his shackles.\n\nIt will be asked, perhaps, was not the Reformation one of the products of\nthat great outbreak of many-sided free mental activity included under the\ngeneral head of the Renascence? Melanchthon, Ulrich von Hutten, Beza, were\nthey not all humanists? Was not the arch-humanist, Erasmus, fautor-in-chief\nof the Reformation, until he got frightened and basely deserted it?\n\nFrom the language of Protestant historians, it would seem that they often\nforget that Reformation and Protestantism are by no means convertible\nterms. There were plenty of sincere and indeed zealous reformers, before,\nduring, and after the birth and growth of Protestantism, who would have\nnothing to do with it. Assuredly, the rejuvenescence of science and of art;\nthe widening of the field of Nature by geographical and astronomical\ndiscovery; the revelation of the noble ideals of antique literature by the\nrevival of classical learning; the stir of thought, throughout all classes\nof society, by the printers' work, loosened traditional bonds and weakened\nthe hold of mediaeval Supernaturalism. In the interests of liberal culture\nand of national welfare, the humanists were eager to lend a hand to\nanything which tended to the discomfiture of their sworn enemies, the\nmonks, and they willingly supported every movement in the direction of\nweakening ecclesiastical interference with civil life. But the bond of a\ncommon enemy was the only real tie between the humanist {13} and the\nprotestant; their alliance was bound to be of short duration, and, sooner\nor later, to 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 could\nbe 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 lie\nin 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 professed\nhimself no hero. But he never deserted that reformatory movement which he\noriginally contemplated; and it was impossible he should have deserted the\nspecifically Protestant reformation in which he never took part. He was\nessentially a theological whig, to whom radicalism was as hateful as it is\nto all whigs; or, to borrow a still more appropriate comparison from modern\ntimes, a broad churchman who refused to enlist with either the High Church\nor the Low Church zealots, and paid the penalty of being called coward,\ntime-server and traitor, by both. Yet really there is a good deal in his\npathetic remonstrance that he does not see why he is bound to become a\nmartyr for that in which he does not believe; and a fair consideration of\nthe circumstances and the consequences of the Protestant reformation seems\nto me to go a long way towards justifying the course he adopted.\n\nFew men had better means of being acquainted {14} with the condition of\nEurope; none could be more competent to gauge the intellectual shallowness\nand self-contradiction of the protestant criticism of catholic doctrine;\nand to estimate, at its proper value, the fond imagination that the waters\nlet out by the Renascence would come to rest amidst the blind alleys of the\nnew ecclesiasticism. The bastard, whilom poor student and monk, become the\nfamiliar of bishops and princes, at home in all grades of society, could\nnot fail to be aware of the gravity of the social position, of the dangers\nimminent from the profligacy and indifference of the ruling classes, no\nless than from the anarchical tendencies of the people who groaned under\ntheir oppression. The wanderer who had lived in Germany, in France, in\nEngland, in Italy, and who counted many of the best and most influential\nmen in each country among his friends, was not likely to estimate wrongly\nthe enormous 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 more\nsanguine temperament than Erasmus might have seen no hope for the future,\nexcept in gradually freeing the ubiquitous organisation of the Church from\nthe corruptions which alone, as he imagined, prevented it from being as\nbeneficent as it was powerful. The broad tolerance of the scholar and man\nof the world might well be revolted by the ruffianism, however genial, of\none great light of Protestantism, and the narrow fanaticism, however\nlearned and logical, of others; and to a cautious thinker, by whom,\nwhatever his shortcomings, the {15} ethical ideal of the Christian evangel\nwas sincerely prized, it really was a fair question, whether it was worth\nwhile to bring about a political and social deluge, the end of which no\nmortal could foresee, for the purpose of setting up Lutheran, Zwinglian,\nand other Peterkins, in the place of the actual claimant to the reversion\nof the spiritual wealth of the Galilean fisherman.\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 Anabaptist\ncommunism, which opened the apocalypse, had succeeded, in shadowy\nprocession, the reign of terror and of spoliation in England, with the\njudicial murders of his friends, More and Fisher; the bitter tyranny of\nevangelistic clericalism in Geneva and in Scotland; the long agony of\nreligious wars, persecutions, and massacres, which devastated France and\nreduced Germany almost to savagery; finishing with the spectacle of\nLutheranism in its native country sunk into mere dead Erastian formalism,\nbefore it was a century old; while Jesuitry triumphed over Protestantism in\nthree-fourths of Europe, bringing in its train a recrudescence of all the\ncorruptions Erasmus and his friends sought to abolish; might not he have\nquite honestly thought this a somewhat too heavy price to pay for\nProtestantism; more especially, since no one was in a better position than\nhimself to know how little the dogmatic foundation of the new confessions\nwas able to bear the light {16} which the inevitable progress of humanistic\ncriticism would throw upon them? As the wiser of his contemporaries saw,\nErasmus was, at heart, neither Protestant nor Papist, but an \"Independent\nChristian\"; and, as the wiser of his modern biographers have discerned, he\nwas the precursor, not of sixteenth century reform, but of eighteenth\ncentury \"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\nProtestantism 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 in\nits Biblical stronghold, defended by Protestants and Romanists with equal\nzeal. In the eyes of the \"Patriarch,\" Ultramontanism, Jansenism, and\nCalvinism were merely three persons of the one \"Infame\" which it was the\nobject of his life to crush. If he hated one more than another, it was\nprobably the last; while D'Holbach, and the extreme left of the\nfree-thinking host, were disposed to show no more mercy to Deism and\nPantheism.\n\nThe sceptical insurrection of the eighteenth century made a terrific noise\nand frightened not a few worthy people out of their wits; but cool judges\nmight have foreseen, at the outset, that the efforts of the later rebels\nwere no more likely {17} than those of the earlier, to furnish permanent\nresting-places for the spirit of scientific inquiry. However worthy of\nadmiration may be the acuteness, the common-sense, the wit, the broad\nhumanity, which abound in the writings of the best of the free-thinkers;\nthere is rarely much to be said for their work as an example of the\nadequate treatment of a grave and difficult investigation. I do not think\nany impartial judge will assert that, from this point of view, they are\nmuch better than their adversaries. It must be admitted that they share to\nthe full the fatal weakness of _a priori_ philosophising, no less than the\nmoral frivolity common to their age; while a singular want of appreciation\nof history, as the record of the moral and social evolution of the human\nrace, permitted them to resort to preposterous theories of imposture, in\norder to account for the religious phenomena which are natural products of\nthat 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 the\neighteenth century type was mortally wounded by the _Analogy_; while the\nprogress of the historical and psychological sciences brought to light the\nimportant part played by the mythopoeic faculty; and, by demonstrating the\nextreme readiness of men {18} to impose upon themselves, rendered the\ncalling in of sacerdotal co-operation, in most cases, a superfluity.\n\nAgain, as in the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries, social and\npolitical influences came into play. The free-thinking _philosophes_, who\nobjected to Rousseau's sentimental religiosity almost as much as they did\nto _L'Infame_, were credited with the responsibility for all the evil deeds\nof Rousseau's Jacobin disciples, with about as much justification as\nWicliff was held responsible for the Peasants' revolt, or Luther for the\n_Bauern-krieg_. In England, though our _ancien regime_ was not altogether\nlovely, the social edifice was never in such a bad way as in France; it was\nstill capable of being repaired; and our forefathers, very wisely,\npreferred to wait until that operation could be safely performed, rather\nthan pull it all down about their ears, in order to build a philosophically\nplanned house on brand-new speculative foundations. Under these\ncircumstances, it is not wonderful that, in this country, practical men\npreferred the gospel of Wesley and Whitfield to that of Jean Jacques; while\nenough of the old leaven of Puritanism remained to ensure the favour and\nsupport of a large number of religious men to a revival of evangelical\nsupernaturalism. Thus, by degrees, the free-thinking, or the indifference,\nprevalent among us in the first half of the eighteenth century, was\nreplaced by a strong supernaturalistic reaction, which submerged the work\nof the free-thinkers; and even seemed, for a time, to have arrested the\nnaturalistic movement of {19} which that work was an imperfect indication.\nYet, like Lollardry, four centuries earlier, free-thought merely took to\nrunning underground, safe, sooner or later, to return to the surface.\n\n\n\nMy memory, unfortunately, carries me back to the fourth decade of the\nnineteenth century, when the evangelical flood had a little abated and the\ntops of certain mountains were soon to appear, chiefly in the neighbourhood\nof Oxford; but when, nevertheless, bibliolatry was rampant; when church and\nchapel alike proclaimed, as the oracles of God, the crude assumptions of\nthe worst informed and, in natural sequence, the most presumptuously\nbigoted, 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 theology,\noutside that patronised by his own narrow school, poured forth, from the\nsafe entrenchment of the pulpit, invectives against those who deviated from\nhis notion of orthodoxy. From dark allusions to \"sceptics\" and \"infidels,\"\nI became aware of the existence of people who trusted in carnal reason; who\naudaciously doubted that the world was made in six natural days, or that\nthe deluge was universal; perhaps even went so far as to question the\nliteral accuracy of the story of Eve's temptation, or of {20} Balaam's ass;\nand, from the horror of the tones in which they were mentioned, I should\nhave been justified in drawing the conclusion that these rash men belonged\nto the criminal classes. At the same time, those who were more directly\nresponsible for providing me with the knowledge essential to the right\nguidance of life (and who sincerely desired to do so), imagined they were\ndischarging that most sacred duty by impressing upon my childish mind the\nnecessity, on pain of reprobation in this world and damnation in the next,\nof accepting, in the strict and literal sense, every statement contained in\nthe protestant 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. I\nsuppose that, out of a thousand of my contemporaries, nine hundred, at\nleast, had their minds systematically warped and poisoned, in the name of\nthe God of truth, by like discipline. I am sure that, even a score of years\nlater, those who ventured to question the exact historical accuracy of any\npart of the Old Testament and _a fortiori_ of the Gospels, had to expect a\npitiless shower of verbal missiles, to say nothing of the other\ndisagreeable consequences which visit those who, in any way, run counter to\nthat chaos of prejudices called public opinion.\n\nMy recollections of this time have recently been revived by the perusal of\na remarkable document,[2] {21} signed by as many as thirty-eight out of the\ntwenty odd thousand clergymen of the Established Church. It does not appear\nthat the signataries are officially accredited spokesmen of the\necclesiastical corporation to which they belong; but I feel bound to take\ntheir word for it, that they are \"stewards of the Lord, who have received\nthe Holy Ghost,\" and, therefore, to accept this memorial as evidence that,\nthough the Evangelicism of my early days may be deposed from its place of\npower, though so many of the colleagues of the thirty-eight even repudiate\nthe title of Protestants, yet the green bay tree of bibliolatry flourishes\nas it did sixty years ago. And, as in those good old times, whoso refuses\nto offer incense to the idol is held to be guilty of \"a dishonour to God,\"\nimperilling 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 are\nawake to the unquestionable fact that, if Scripture has been discovered\n\"not to be worthy of unquestioning belief,\" faith \"in the supernatural\nitself\" is, so far, undermined. And I may congratulate myself upon such\nweighty confirmation of an opinion in which I have had the fortune to\nanticipate them. But whether it is more to the credit of the courage, than\nto the intelligence, of the thirty-eight that they should go on to proclaim\nthat the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments \"declare\nincontrovertibly the actual historical truth in all records, both of past\nevents and of the delivery of predictions {22} to be thereafter fulfilled,\"\nmust 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 it\nis 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 the\npart of certain members of the same ecclesiastical body, who therefore\nhave, as I suppose, an equal right to declare themselves \"stewards of the\nLord and recipients of the Holy Ghost.\" In fact, the stream of tendency\ntowards Naturalism, the course of which I have briefly traced, has, of late\nyears, flowed so strongly, that even the Churches have begun, I dare not\nsay to drift, but, at any rate, to swing at their moorings. Within the pale\nof the Anglican establishment, I venture to doubt, whether, at this moment,\nthere are as many thorough-going defenders of \"plenary inspiration\" as\nthere were timid questioners of that doctrine, half a century ago.\nCommentaries, sanctioned by the highest authority, give up the \"actual\nhistorical truth\" of the cosmogonical and diluvial narratives. University\nprofessors of deservedly high repute accept the critical decision that the\nHexateuch is a compilation, in which the share of Moses, either as author\nor as editor, is not quite so clearly demonstrable as it might be; highly\nplaced Divines tell us that the pre-Abrahamic Scripture narratives may be\nignored; that the book of Daniel may be regarded as a patriotic romance of\n{23} the second century B.C.; that the words of the writer of the fourth\nGospel are not always to be distinguished from those which he puts into the\nmouth of Jesus. Conservative, but conscientious, revisers decide that whole\npassages, some of dogmatic and some of ethical importance, are\ninterpolations. An uneasy sense of the weakness of the dogma of Biblical\ninfallibility seems to be at the bottom of a prevailing tendency once more\nto substitute the authority of the \"Church\" for that of the Bible. In my\nold age, it has happened to me to be taken to task for regarding\nChristianity as a \"religion of a book\" as gravely as, in my youth, I should\nhave been reprehended for doubting that proposition. It is a no less\ninteresting symptom that the State Church seems more and more anxious to\nrepudiate all complicity with the principles of the Protestant Reformation\nand to call itself \"Anglo-Catholic.\" Inspiration, deprived of its old\nintelligible sense, is watered down into a mystification. The Scriptures\nare, indeed, inspired; but they contain a wholly undefined and indefinable\n\"human element\"; and this unfortunate intruder is converted into a sort of\nbiblical whipping boy. Whatsoever scientific investigation, historical or\nphysical, proves to be erroneous, the \"human element\" bears the blame;\nwhile the divine inspiration of such statements, as by their nature are out\nof reach of proof or disproof, is still asserted with all the vigour\ninspired by conscious safety from attack. Though the proposal to treat the\nBible \"like any other book\" which caused so much {24} scandal, forty years\nago, may not yet be generally accepted, and though Bishop Colenso's\ncriticisms may still lie, formally, under ecclesiastical ban, yet the\nChurch has not wholly turned a deaf ear to the voice of the scientific\ntempter; and many a coy divine, while \"crying I will ne'er consent,\" has\nconsented to the proposals of that scientific criticism which the\nmemorialists renounce and denounce.\n\nA humble layman, to whom it would seem the height of presumption to assume\neven the unconsidered dignity of a \"steward of science,\" may well find this\nconflict 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 this\ncourse will probably appear the more advisable, the more closely the\nfundamental position of the memorialists is examined.\n\n\"No opinion of the fact or form of Divine Revelation, founded on literary\ncriticism [and I suppose I may add historical, or physical, criticism] of\nthe Scriptures themselves, can be admitted to interfere with the\ntraditionary testimony of the Church, when that has been once ascertained\nand verified by appeal to antiquity.\"[3]\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 New\nTestaments. Grant also that canonicity means infallibility; yet, according\nto the thirty-eight, this \"traditionary {25} testimony\" has to be\n\"ascertained and verified by appeal to antiquity.\" But \"ascertainment and\nverification\" are purely intellectual processes, which must be conducted\naccording to the strict rules of scientific investigation, or be\nself-convicted of worthlessness. Moreover, before we can set about the\nappeal to \"antiquity,\" the exact sense of that usefully vague term must be\ndefined by similar means. \"Antiquity\" may include any number of centuries,\ngreat or small; and whether \"antiquity\" is to comprise the Council of\nTrent, or to stop a little beyond that of Nicaea, or to come to an end in\nthe time of Irenaeus, or in that of Justin Martyr, are knotty questions\nwhich can be decided, if at all, only by those critical methods which the\nsignataries treat so cavalierly. And yet the decision of these questions is\nfundamental, for as the limits of the canonical scriptures vary, so may the\ndogmas deduced from them require modification. Christianity is one thing,\nif the fourth Gospel, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the pastoral Epistles,\nand the Apocalypse are canonical and (by the hypothesis) infallibly true;\nand another thing, if they are not. As I have already said, whoso defines\nthe canon defines the 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 Western\nChurch differed in opinion for centuries; and yet neither the one branch,\nnor the other, can have considered its judgment infallible, since they\neventually agreed to a transaction, by which each gave up its {26}\nobjection to the book patronised by the other. Moreover, the \"fathers\"\nargue (in a more or less rational manner) about the canonicity of this or\nthat 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 used\nit to the best of their ability. Thus it would appear that though science,\nlike Nature, may be driven out with a fork, ecclesiastical or other, yet\nshe surely comes back again. The appeal to \"antiquity\" is, in fact, an\nappeal to science, first to define what antiquity is; secondly, to\ndetermine what \"antiquity,\" so defined, says about canonicity; thirdly, to\nprove that canonicity means infallibility. And when science, largely in the\nshape of the abhorred \"criticism,\" has done this, and has shown that\n\"antiquity\" used her own methods, however clumsily and imperfectly, she\nnaturally turns round upon the appealers to \"antiquity,\" and demands that\nthey should show cause why, in these days, science should not resume the\nwork the ancients did so imperfectly, and carry it out efficiently.\n\nBut no such cause can be shown. If \"antiquity\" permitted Eusebius, Origen,\nTertullian, Irenaeus, to argue for the reception of this book into the canon\nand the rejection of that, upon rational grounds, \"antiquity\" admitted the\nwhole principle of modern criticism. If Irenaeus produces ridiculous reasons\nfor limiting the Gospels to four, it was open to any one else to produce\ngood reasons (if he had them) for cutting them down to three, or increasing\nthem to {27} five. If the Eastern branch of the Church had a right to\nreject the Apocalypse and accept the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the\nWestern an equal right to accept the Apocalypse and reject the Epistle,\ndown to the fourth century, any other branch would have an equal right, on\ncause shown, to reject both, or, as the Catholic Church afterwards actually\ndid, 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 supernaturalism\non the elephant of biblical infallibility, and furnished the elephant with\nstanding ground on the tortoise of \"antiquity,\" they, like their famous\nHindoo analogue, have been content to look no further; and have thereby\nbeen spared the horror of discovering that the tortoise rests on a\ngrievously fragile construction, to a great extent the work of that very\nintellectual operation which they anathematise and repudiate.\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 on\nthe connotation of the definite article) existed before the Christian\nscriptures; and that the infallibility of these depends upon the\ninfallibility of the judgment of the persons who selected the books, of\nwhich they are composed, out of the mass of literature current among the\nearly Christians. The logical acumen of Augustine showed him that the\nauthority of the Gospel he preached {28} must rest on that of the Church to\nwhich he belonged.[4] But it is no less true that the Hebrew and the\nSeptuagint versions of most, if not all, of the Old Testament books existed\nbefore the birth of Jesus of Nazareth; and that their divine authority is\npresupposed by, and therefore can hardly depend upon, the religious body\nconstituted by his disciples. As everybody knows, the very conception of a\n\"Christ\" is purely Jewish. The validity of the argument from the Messianic\nprophecies vanishes unless their infallible authority is granted; and, as a\nmatter of fact, whether we turn to the Gospels, the Epistles, or the\nwritings of the early Apologists, the Jewish scriptures are recognised as\nthe 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 offer\nhis assertion as sufficient evidence of the validity of the will. And, even\nwere not such a circular, or rather rotatory, argument, that the\ninfallibility of the Bible is testified by the infallible Church, whose\ninfallibility is testified by the infallible Bible, too absurd for serious\nconsideration, it remains permissible to ask; Where and when the Church,\nduring the period of its infallibility, as {29} limited by Anglican\ndogmatic necessities, has officially decreed the \"actual historical truth\nof all records\" in the Old Testament? Was Augustine heretical when he\ndenied the actual historical truth of the record of the Creation? Father\nSuarez, standing on later Roman tradition, may have a right to declare that\nhe was; but it does not lie in the mouth of those who limit their appeal to\nthat early \"antiquity,\" in which Augustine played so great a part, to say\nso.\n\n\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 ridiculous--from\nNeo-Catholicism and Inner-light mysticism, at the top, to unclean things,\nnot worthy of mention in the same breath, at the bottom. In my poor\nopinion, the importance of these manifestations is often greatly\nover-estimated. The extant forms of Supernaturalism have deep roots in\nhuman nature, and will undoubtedly die hard; but, in these latter days,\nthey have to cope with an enemy whose full strength is only just beginning\nto be put out, and whose forces, gathering strength year by year, are\nhemming them round on every side. This enemy is Science, in the acceptation\nof systematised natural knowledge, which, during the last two centuries,\nhas extended those methods of investigation, the worth of which is\nconfirmed by daily appeal to Nature, to every {30} region in which the\nSupernatural 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 of\nthe _Iliad_ was successfully assailed by scientific literary criticism;\nwhen scientific physical criticism, after exploding the geocentric theory\nof the universe, and reducing the solar system itself to one of millions of\ngroups of like cosmic specks, circling, at unimaginable distances from one\nanother, through infinite space, showed the supernaturalistic theories of\nthe duration of the earth and of life upon it, to be as inadequate as those\nof its relative dimensions and importance had been; it needed no prophetic\ngift to see that, sooner or later, the Jewish and the early Christian\nrecords would be treated in the same manner; that the authorship of the\nHexateuch and of the Gospels would be as severely tested; and that the\nevidence in favour of the veracity of many of the statements found in the\nScriptures would have to be strong indeed, if they were to be opposed to\nthe conclusions of physical science. In point of fact, so far as I can\ndiscover, no one competent to judge of the evidential strength of these\nconclusions, ventures now to say that the biblical accounts of the creation\nand of the deluge are true in the natural sense of the words of the\nnarratives. The most the modern Reconciler ventures upon is to affirm, that\nsome quite different sense may be put upon the words; and that this\nnon-natural sense may, with a little trouble, be manipulated {31} into some\nsort of non-contradiction of scientific truth.\n\nMy purpose, in the essay (XVI.) which treats of the narrative of the\nDeluge, was 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 for\nits origin, by producing a form of those ancient legends of pagan Chaldaea,\nfrom which the biblical compilation is manifestly derived. I have yet to\nlearn that the main propositions of this essay can be seriously challenged.\n\nIn the essays (II., III.) on the narrative of the Creation, I have\nendeavoured to controvert the assertion that modern science supports,\neither the interpretation put upon it by Mr. Gladstone, or any\ninterpretation which is compatible with the general sense of the narrative,\nquite apart from particular details. The first chapter of Genesis teaches\nthe supernatural 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 as far\nback as the Silurian epoch), plants, aquatic, aerial, and terrestrial\nanimals have {32} co-existed; that the earliest known are unlike those\nwhich at present exist; and that the modern species have come into\nexistence as the last terms of a series, the members of which have appeared\none after 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 Hebrew\nwritings themselves, but by the ecclesiastical champions and friends from\nwhom they may well pray to be delivered, thus shatter themselves against\nthe rock of natural knowledge, in respect of the two most important of all\nevents, the origin of things and the palingenesis of terrestrial life, what\nhistorical credit dare any serious thinker attach to the narratives of the\nfabrication of Eve, of the Fall, of the commerce between the _Bene Elohim_\nand the daughters of men, which lie between the creational and the diluvial\nlegends? And, if these are to lose all historical worth, what becomes of\nthe infallibility of those who, according to the later scriptures, have\naccepted them, argued from them, and staked far-reaching dogmatic\nconclusions upon their historical accuracy?\n\nIt is the merest ostrich policy for contemporary ecclesiasticism to try to\nhide its Hexateuchal head--in the hope that the inseparable connection of\nits body with pre-Abrahamic legends may be overlooked. The question will\nstill be asked, if the first nine chapters of the Pentateuch are\nunhistorical, how is {33} the historical accuracy of the remainder to be\nguaranteed? What more intrinsic claim has the story of the Exodus than that\nof the Deluge, to belief? If God did not walk in the Garden of Eden, how\ncan we be assured that he spoke from Sinai?\n\n\n\nIn some other of the following essays (IX., X., XI., XII., XIV., XV.) I\nhave endeavoured to show that sober and well-founded physical and literary\ncriticism plays no less havoc with the doctrine that the canonical\nscriptures of the New Testament \"declare incontrovertibly the actual\nhistorical truth in all records.\" We are told that the Gospels contain a\ntrue revelation of the spiritual world--a proposition which, in one sense\nof the word \"spiritual,\" I should not think it necessary to dispute. But,\nwhen it is taken to signify that everything we are told about the world of\nspirits in these books is infallibly true; that we are bound to accept the\ndemonology which constitutes an inseparable part of their teaching; and to\nprofess belief in a Supernaturalism as gross as that of any primitive\npeople--it is at any rate permissible to ask why? Science may be unable to\ndefine the 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, partially\ndiscrepant, versions of a story, about the primitive form, the origin, and\nthe authority for which we know absolutely nothing. But the {34} evidence\nin favour of the Gadarene miracle is as good as that for any other.\n\nElsewhere, I have pointed out that it is utterly beside the mark to declaim\nagainst these conclusions on the ground of their asserted tendency to\ndeprive mankind of the consolations of the Christian faith, and to destroy\nthe foundations of morality; still less to brand them with the\nquestion-begging vituperative appellation of \"infidelity.\" The point is not\nwhether they are wicked; but, whether, from the point of view of scientific\nmethod, they are irrefragably true. If they are, they will be accepted in\ntime, whether they are wicked, or not wicked. Nature, so far as we have\nbeen able to attain to any insight into her ways, recks little about\nconsolation and makes for righteousness by very round-about paths. And, at\nany rate, whatever may be possible for other people, it is becoming less\nand less possible for the man who puts his faith in scientific methods of\nascertaining truth, and is accustomed to have that faith justified by daily\nexperience, to be consciously false to his principle in any matter. But the\nnumber of such men, driven into the use of scientific methods of inquiry\nand taught to trust them, by their education, their daily professional and\nbusiness needs, is increasing and will continually increase. The\nphraseology of Supernaturalism may remain on men's lips, but in practice\nthey are Naturalists. The magistrate who listens with devout attention to\nthe precept \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live\" on Sunday, on Monday,\ndismisses, as intrinsically absurd, a charge {35} of bewitching a cow\nbrought against some old woman; the superintendent of a lunatic asylum who\nsubstituted exorcism for rational modes of treatment would have but a short\ntenure of office; even parish clerks doubt the utility of prayers for rain,\nso long as the wind is in the east; and an outbreak of pestilence sends\nmen, not to the churches, but to the drains. In spite of prayers for the\nsuccess of our arms and _Te Deums_ for victory, our real faith is in big\nbattalions and keeping our powder dry; in knowledge of the science of\nwarfare; in energy, courage, and discipline. In these, as in all other\npractical affairs, we act on the aphorism \"_Laborare est orare_\"; we admit\nthat intelligent work is the only acceptable worship; and that, whether\nthere be a Supernature or not, our business is with Nature.\n\n\n\nIt is important to note that the principle of the scientific Naturalism of\nthe 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;[5] but simply to the denial of the validity of the evidence\nadduced in favour of this, or of that, extant form of Supernaturalism.\n\n{36}\n\nLooking at the matter from the most rigidly scientific point of view, the\nassumption that, amidst the myriads of worlds scattered through endless\nspace, there can be no intelligence, as much greater than man's as his is\ngreater than a blackbeetle's; no being endowed with powers of influencing\nthe course of nature as much greater than his, as his is greater than a\nsnail's, seems to me not merely baseless, but impertinent. Without stepping\nbeyond the analogy of that which is known, it is easy to people the cosmos\nwith entities, in ascending scale, until we reach something practically\nindistinguishable from omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. If our\nintelligence can, in some matters, surely reproduce the past of thousands\nof years ago and anticipate the future, thousands of years hence, it is\nclearly within the limits of possibility that some greater intellect, even\nof the same order, may be able to mirror the whole past and the whole\nfuture; if the universe is penetrated by a medium of such a nature that a\nmagnetic needle on the earth answers to a commotion in the sun, an\nomnipresent agent is also conceivable; if our insignificant knowledge gives\nus some influence over events, practical omniscience may confer indefinably\ngreater power. Finally, if evidence that a thing may be, were equivalent to\nproof that it is, analogy might justify the construction of a naturalistic\ntheology and demonology not less wonderful than the current supernatural;\njust as it might justify the peopling of Mars, or of Jupiter, with living\nforms to which terrestrial biology offers no {37} parallel. Until human\nlife is longer and the duties of the present press less heavily, I do not\nthink that 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. As\nto the interests of morality, I am disposed to think that if mankind could\nbe got to act up to this last principle in every relation of life, a\nreformation would be effected such as the world has not yet seen; an\napproximation to the millennium, such as no supernaturalistic religion has\never yet succeeded, or seems likely ever to succeed, in effecting.\n\n\n\nI have hitherto dwelt upon scientific Naturalism chiefly in its critical\nand destructive aspect. But the present incarnation of the spirit of the\nRenascence differs from its predecessor in the eighteenth century, in that\nit builds up, as well as pulls down.\n\nThat of which it has laid the foundation, of which it is already raising\nthe superstructure, is the doctrine of evolution. But so many strange\nmisconceptions are current about this doctrine--it is attacked on such\nfalse grounds by its enemies, and made to cover so much that is disputable\nby some of its friends, that I think it well to define as clearly as I can,\nwhat I do not and what I do understand by the doctrine. {38}\n\nI have nothing to say to any \"Philosophy of Evolution.\" Attempts to\nconstruct such a philosophy may be as useful, nay, even as admirable, as\nwas the attempt of Descartes to get at a theory of the universe by the same\n_a priori_ road; but, in my judgment, they are as premature. Nor, for this\npurpose, have I to do with any theory of the \"Origin of Species,\" much as I\nvalue that which is known as the Darwinian theory. That the doctrine of\nnatural selection presupposes evolution is quite true; but it is not true\nthat evolution necessarily implies natural selection. In fact, evolution\nmight conceivably have taken place, without the development of groups\npossessing the characters of species.\n\nFor me, the doctrine of evolution is no speculation, but a generalisation\nof certain facts, which may be observed by any one who will take the\nnecessary trouble. These facts are those which are classed by biologists\nunder the heads of Embryology and of Palaeontology. Embryology proves that\nevery higher form of individual life becomes what it is by a process of\ngradual differentiation from an extremely low form; palaeontology proves, in\nsome cases, and renders probable in all, that the oldest types of a group\nare the lowest; and that they have been followed by a gradual succession of\nmore and more differentiated forms. It is simply a fact, that evolution of\nthe individual animal and plant is taking place, as a natural process, in\nmillions and millions of cases every day; it is a fact, that the species\nwhich have succeeded one another in the past, do, in many {39} cases,\npresent just those morphological relations, which they must possess, if\nthey had proceeded, one from the other, by an analogous process of\nevolution.\n\nThe alternative presented, therefore, is: either the forms of one and the\nsame type--say, _e.g._, that of the Horse tribe[6]--arose successively, but\nindependently of one another, at intervals, during myriads of years; or,\nthe later forms are modified descendants of the earlier. And the latter\nsupposition is so vastly more probable than the former, that rational men\nwill adopt it, unless satisfactory evidence to the contrary can be\nproduced. The objection sometimes put forward, that no one yet professes to\nhave seen one species pass into another, comes oddly from those who believe\nthat mankind are all descended from Adam. Has any one then yet seen the\nproduction of negroes from a white stock, or _vice versa_? Moreover, is it\nabsolutely necessary to have watched every step of the progress of a\nplanet, to be justified in concluding that it really does go round the sun?\nIf so, astronomy is in a bad way.\n\nI do not, for a moment, presume to suggest that some one, far better\nacquainted than I am with astronomy and physics; or that a master of the\nnew chemistry, with its extraordinary revelations; or that a student of the\ndevelopment of human society, of language, and of religions, may not find a\nsufficient foundation for the doctrine of evolution in these several\nregions. {40} On the contrary, I rejoice to see that scientific\ninvestigation, in all directions, is tending to the same result. And it may\nwell be, that it is only my long occupation with biological matters that\nleads me to feel safer among them than anywhere else. Be that as it may, I\ntake my stand on the facts of embryology and of palaeontology; and I hold\nthat our present knowledge of these facts is sufficiently thorough and\nextensive to justify the assertion that all future philosophical and\ntheological speculations will have to accommodate themselves to some such\ncommon body of established truths as the following:--\n\n1. Plants and animals have existed on our planet for many hundred thousand,\nprobably millions of years. During this time, their forms, or species, have\nundergone a succession of changes, which eventually gave rise to the\nspecies which constitute the present living population of the earth. There\nis no evidence, nor any reason to suspect, that this secular process of\nevolution is other than a part of the ordinary course of nature; there is\nno more ground for imagining the occurrence of supernatural intervention,\nat any moment in the development of species in the past, than there is for\nsupposing such intervention to take place, at any moment in the development\nof an individual animal or plant, at the present day.\n\n2. At present, every individual animal or plant commences its existence as\nan organism of extremely simple anatomical structure; and it acquires all\nthe complexity it ultimately possesses by gradual {41} differentiation into\nparts of various structure and function. When a series of specific forms of\nthe same type, extending over a long period of past time, is examined, the\nrelation between the earlier and the later forms is analogous to that\nbetween earlier and later stages of individual development. Therefore, it\nis a probable conclusion that, if we could follow living beings back to\ntheir earliest states, we should find them to present forms similar to\nthose of the individual germ, or, what comes to the same thing, of those\nlowest known organisms which stand upon the boundary line between plants\nand animals. At present, our knowledge of the ancient living world stops\nvery far short of this point.\n\n3. It is generally agreed, and there is certainly no evidence to the\ncontrary, that all plants are devoid of consciousness; that they neither\nfeel, desire, nor think. It is conceivable that the evolution of the\nprimordial living substance should have taken place only along the plant\nline. In that case, the result might have been a wealth of vegetable life,\nas great, perhaps as varied, as at present, though certainly widely\ndifferent from the present flora, in the evolution of which animals have\nplayed so great a part. But the living world thus constituted would be\nsimply an admirable piece of unconscious machinery, the working out of\nwhich lay potentially in its primitive composition; pleasure and pain would\nhave no place in it; it would be a veritable Garden of Eden without any\ntree of the knowledge of good and evil. The question of the moral\ngovernment of such a world {42} could no more be asked, than we could\nreasonably seek for a moral purpose in a kaleidoscope.\n\n4. How far down the scale of animal life the phenomena of consciousness are\nmanifested, it is impossible to say. No one doubts their presence in his\nfellow-men; and, unless any strict Cartesians are left, no one doubts that\nmammals and birds are to be reckoned creatures that have feelings analogous\nto our smell, taste, sight, hearing, touch, pleasure, and pain. For my own\npart, I should be disposed to extend this analogical judgment a good deal\nfurther. On the other hand, if the lowest forms of plants are to be denied\nconsciousness, I do not see on what ground it is to be ascribed to the\nlowest animals. I find it hard to believe that an infusory animalcule, a\nforaminifer, or a fresh-water polype is capable of feeling; and, in spite\nof Shakspere, I have doubts about the great sensitiveness of the \"poor\nbeetle that we tread upon.\" The question is equally perplexing when we turn\nto the stages of development of the individual. Granted a fowl feels; that\nthe chick just hatched feels; that the chick when it chirps within the egg\nmay possibly feel; what is to be said of it, on the fifth day, when the\nbird is there, but with all its tissues nascent? Still more, on the first\nday, when it is nothing but a flat cellular disk? I certainly cannot bring\nmyself to believe that this disk feels. Yet if it does not, there must be\nsome time in the three weeks, between the first day and the day of\nhatching, when, as a concomitant, or a consequence, of the attainment by\nthe brain of {43} the chick of a certain stage of structural evolution,\nconsciousness makes its appearance. I have frequently expressed my\nincapacity to understand the nature of the relation between consciousness\nand a certain anatomical tissue, which is thus established by observation.\nBut the fact remains that, so far as observation and experiment go, they\nteach us that the psychical phenomena are dependent on the physical.\n\nIn like manner, if fishes, insects, scorpions, and such animals as the\npearly nautilus, possess feeling, then undoubtedly consciousness was\npresent in the world as far back as the Silurian epoch. But, if the\nearliest animals were similar to our rhizopods and monads, there must have\nbeen some time, between the much earlier epoch in which they constituted\nthe whole animal population and the Silurian, in which feeling dawned, in\nconsequence of the organism having reached the stage of evolution on which\nit depends.\n\n5. Consciousness has various forms, which may be manifested independently\nof one another. The feelings of light and colour, of sound, of touch,\nthough so often associated with those of pleasure and pain, are, by nature,\nas entirely independent of them as is thinking. An animal devoid of the\nfeelings of pleasure and of pain, may nevertheless exhibit all the effects\nof sensation and purposive action. Therefore, it would be a justifiable\nhypothesis that, long after organic evolution had attained to\nconsciousness, pleasure and pain were still absent. Such a world {44} would\nbe without either happiness or misery; no act could be punished and none\ncould be rewarded; and it could have no moral purpose.\n\n6. Suppose, for argument's sake, that all mammals and birds are subjects of\npleasure and pain. Then we may be certain that these forms of consciousness\nwere in existence at the beginning of the Mesozoic epoch. From that time\nforth, pleasure has been distributed without reference to merit, and pain\ninflicted without reference to demerit, throughout all but a mere fraction\nof the higher animals. Moreover, the amount and the severity of the pain,\nno less than the variety and acuteness of the pleasure, have increased with\nevery advance in the scale of evolution. As suffering came into the world,\nnot in consequence of a fall, but of a rise, in the scale of being, so\nevery further rise has brought more suffering. As the evidence stands, it\nwould appear that the sort of brain which characterises the highest mammals\nand which, so far as we know, is the indispensable condition of the highest\nsensibility, did not come into existence before the Tertiary epoch. The\nprimordial anthropoid was probably, in this respect, on much the same\nfooting as his pithecoid kin. Like them he stood upon his \"natural rights,\"\ngratified all his desires to the best of his ability, and was as incapable\nof either right or wrong doing as they. It would be as absurd as in their\ncase, to regard his pleasures, any more than theirs, as moral rewards, and\nhis pains, any more than theirs, as moral punishments. {45}\n\n7. From the remotest ages of which we have any cognizance, death has been\nthe natural and, apparently, the necessary concomitant of life. In our\nhypothetical world (3), inhabited by nothing but plants, death must have\nvery early resulted from the struggle for existence: many of the crowd must\nhave jostled one another out of the conditions on which life depends. The\noccurrence of death, as far back as we have any fossil record of life,\nhowever, needs not to be proved by such arguments; for, if there had been\nno death there would have been no fossil remains, such as the great\nmajority of those we meet with. Not only was there death in the world, as\nfar as the record of life takes us; but, ever since mammals and birds have\nbeen preyed upon by carnivorous animals, there has been painful death,\ninflicted by mechanisms specially adapted for inflicting it.\n\n8. Those who are acquainted with the closeness of the structural relations\nbetween the human organisation and that of the mammals which come nearest\nto him, on the one hand; and with the palaeontological history of such\nanimals as horses and dogs, on the other; will not be disposed to question\nthe origin of man from forms which stand in the same sort of relation to\n_Homo sapiens_, as _Hipparion_ does to _Equus_. I think it a conclusion,\nfully justified by analogy, that, sooner or later, we shall discover the\nremains of our less specialised primatic ancestors in the strata which have\nyielded the less specialised equine and canine quadrupeds. At present,\nfossil remains of men do not take us back further than the later {46} part\nof the Quaternary epoch; and, as was to be expected, they do not differ\nmore from existing men, than Quaternary horses differ from existing horses.\nStill earlier we find traces of man, in implements, such as are used by the\nruder savages at the present day. Later, the remains of the palaeolithic and\nneolithic conditions take us gradually from the savage state to the\ncivilisations of Egypt and of Mycenae; though the true chronological order\nof the remains actually discovered may be uncertain.\n\n9. Much has yet to be learned, but, at present, natural knowledge affords\nno support to the notion that men have fallen from a higher to a lower\nstate. On the contrary, everything points to a slow natural evolution;\nwhich, favoured by the surrounding conditions in such localities as the\nvalleys of the Yang-tse-kang, the Euphrates, and the Nile, reached a\nrelatively high pitch, five or six thousand years ago; while, in many other\nregions, the savage condition has persisted down to our day. In all this\nvast lapse of time there is not a trace of the occurrence of any general\ndestruction of the human race; not the smallest indication that man has\nbeen treated on any other principles than the rest of the animal world.\n\n10. The results of the process of evolution in the case of man, and in that\nof his more nearly allied contemporaries, have been marvellously different.\nYet it is easy to see that small primitive differences of a certain order,\nmust, in the long run, bring about a wide divergence of the human stock\nfrom the others. {47} It is a reasonable supposition that, in the earliest\nhuman organisms, an improved brain, a voice more capable of modulation and\narticulation, limbs which lent themselves better to gesture, a more perfect\nhand, capable among other things of imitating form in plastic or other\nmaterial, were combined with the curiosity, the mimetic tendency, the\nstrong family affection, of the next lower group; and that they were\naccompanied by exceptional length of life and a prolonged minority. The\nlast two peculiarities are obviously calculated to strengthen the family\norganisation, and to give great weight to its educative influences. The\npotentiality of language, as the vocal symbol of thought, lay in the\nfaculty of modulating and articulating the voice. The potentiality of\nwriting, as the visual symbol of thought, lay in the hand that could draw;\nand in the mimetic tendency, which, as we know, was gratified by drawing,\nas far back as the days of Quaternary man. With speech as the record, in\ntradition, of the experience of more than one generation; with writing as\nthe record of that of any number of generations; the experience of the\nrace, tested and corrected generation after generation, could be stored up\nand made the starting point for fresh progress. Having these perfectly\nnatural factors of the evolutionary process in man before us, it seems\nunnecessary to go further a-field in search of others.\n\n11. That the doctrine of evolution implies a former state of innocence of\nmankind is quite true; but, as I have remarked, it is the innocence of the\nape and of {48} the tiger, whose acts, however they may run counter to the\nprinciples of morality, it would be absurd to blame. The lust of the one\nand the ferocity of the other are as much provided for in their\norganisation, are as clear evidences of design, as any other features that\ncan be named.\n\nObservation and experiment upon the phenomena of society soon taught men\nthat, in order to obtain the advantages of social existence, certain rules\nmust be observed. Morality commenced with society. Society is possible only\nupon the condition that the members of it shall surrender more or less of\ntheir individual freedom of action. In primitive societies, individual\nselfishness is a centrifugal force of such intensity that it is constantly\nbringing the social organisation to the verge of destruction. Hence the\nprominence of the positive rules of obedience to the elders; of standing by\nthe family or the tribe in all emergencies; of fulfilling the religious\nrites, non-observance of which is conceived to damage it with the\nsupernatural powers, belief in whose existence is one of the earliest\nproducts of human thought; and of the negative rules, which restrain each\nfrom meddling with the life or property of another.\n\n12. The highest conceivable form of human society is that in which the\ndesire to do what is best for the whole, dominates and limits the action of\nevery member of that society. The more complex the social organisation the\ngreater the number of acts from which each man must abstain, if he desires\nto do that which is best for all. Thus the progressive {49} evolution of\nsociety means increasing restriction of individual freedom in certain\ndirections.\n\nWith the advance of civilisation, and the growth of cities and of nations\nby the coalescence of families and of tribes, the rules which constitute\nthe common foundation of morality and of law became more numerous and\ncomplicated, and the temptations to break or evade many of them stronger.\nIn the absence of a clear apprehension of the natural sanctions of these\nrules, a supernatural sanction was assumed; and imagination supplied the\nmotives which reason was supposed to be incompetent to furnish. Religion,\nat first independent of morality, gradually took morality under its\nprotection; and the supernaturalists have ever since tried to persuade\nmankind that the existence of ethics is bound up with that of\nsupernaturalism.\n\nI am not of that opinion. But, whether it is correct or otherwise, it is\nvery clear to me that, as Beelzebub is not to be cast out by the aid of\nBeelzebub, so morality is not to be established by immorality. It is, we\nare told, the special peculiarity of the devil that he was a liar from the\nbeginning. If we set out in life with pretending to know that which we do\nnot know; with professing to accept for proof evidence which we are well\naware is inadequate; with wilfully shutting our eyes and our ears to facts\nwhich militate against this or that comfortable hypothesis; we are\nassuredly doing our best to deserve the same character.\n\n\n\nI have not the presumption to imagine that, in {50} spite of all my\nefforts, errors may not have crept into these propositions. But I am\ntolerably confident that time will prove them to be substantially correct.\nAnd if they are so, I confess I do not see how any extant supernaturalistic\nsystem can also claim exactness. That they are irreconcilable with the\nbiblical cosmogony, anthropology, and theodicy is obvious; but they are no\nless inconsistent with the sentimental Deism of the \"Vicaire Savoyard\" and\nhis numerous modern progeny. It is as impossible, to my mind, to suppose\nthat the evolutionary process was set going with full foreknowledge of the\nresult and yet with what we should understand by a purely benevolent\nintention, as it is to imagine that the intention was purely malevolent.\nAnd the prevalence of dualistic theories from the earliest times to the\npresent day--whether in the shape of the doctrine of the inherently evil\nnature of matter; of an Ahriman; of a hard and cruel Demiurge; of a\ndiabolical \"prince of this world,\" show how widely this difficulty has been\nfelt.\n\nMany seem to think that, when it is admitted that the ancient literature,\ncontained in our Bibles, has no more claim to infallibility than any other\nancient literature; when it is proved that the Israelites and their\nChristian successors accepted a great many supernaturalistic theories and\nlegends which have no better foundation than those of heathenism, nothing\nremains to be done but to throw the Bible aside as so much waste paper.\n\nI have always opposed this opinion. It appears to {51} me that if there is\nanybody more objectionable than the orthodox Bibliolater it is the\nheterodox Philistine, who can discover in a literature which, in some\nrespects, has no superior, nothing but a subject for scoffing and an\noccasion for the display of his conceited ignorance of the debt he owes to\nformer generations.\n\nTwenty-two years ago I pleaded for the use of the Bible as an instrument of\npopular education, and I venture to repeat what I then said:\n\n\"Consider the great historical fact that, for three centuries, this book\nhas been woven into the life of all that is best and noblest in English\nhistory; that it has become the national epic of Britain and is as familiar\nto gentle and simple, from John o' Groat's House to Land's End, as Dante\nand Tasso once were to the Italians; that it is written in the noblest and\npurest English and abounds in exquisite beauties of mere literary form;\nand, finally, that it forbids the veriest hind, who never left his village,\nto be ignorant of the existence of other countries and other civilisations\nand of a great past, stretching back to the furthest limits of the oldest\nnations in the world. By the study of what other book could children be so\nmuch humanised and made to feel that each figure in that vast historical\nprocession fills, like themselves, but a momentary space in the interval\nbetween the Eternities; and earns the blessings or the curses of all time,\naccording to its effort to do good and hate evil, even as they also are\nearning their payment for their work?\"[7]\n\n{52}\n\nAt the same time, I laid stress upon the necessity of placing such\ninstruction in lay hands; in the hope and belief, that it would thus\ngradually accommodate itself to the coming changes of opinion; that the\ntheology and the legend would drop more and more out of sight, while the\nperennially interesting historical, literary, and ethical contents would\ncome more and more into view.\n\nI may add yet another claim of the Bible to the respect and the attention\nof a democratic age. Throughout the history of the western world, the\nScriptures, Jewish and Christian, have been the great instigators of revolt\nagainst the worst forms of clerical and political despotism. The Bible has\nbeen the _Magna Charta_ of the poor and of the oppressed; down to modern\ntimes, no State has had a constitution in which the interests of the people\nare so largely taken into account, in which the duties, so much more than\nthe privileges, of rulers are insisted upon, as that drawn up for Israel in\nDeuteronomy and in Leviticus; nowhere is the fundamental truth that the\nwelfare of the State, in the long run, depends on the uprightness of the\ncitizen so strongly laid down. Assuredly, the Bible talks no trash about\nthe rights of man; but it insists on the equality of duties, on the liberty\nto bring about that righteousness which is somewhat different from\nstruggling for \"rights;\" on the fraternity of taking thought for one's\nneighbour as for oneself.\n\nSo far as such equality, liberty, and fraternity are included under the\ndemocratic principles which assume the same names, the Bible is the most\n{53} democratic book in the world. As such it began, through the heretical\nsects, to undermine the clerico-political despotism of the middle ages,\nalmost as soon as it was formed, in the eleventh century; Pope and King had\nas much as they could do to put down the Albigenses and the Waldenses in\nthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries; the Lollards and the Hussites gave\nthem still more trouble in the fourteenth and fifteenth; from the sixteenth\ncentury onward, the Protestant sects have favoured political freedom in\nproportion to the degree in which they have refused to acknowledge any\nultimate authority save that of the Bible.\n\nBut the enormous influence which has thus been exerted by the Jewish and\nChristian Scriptures has had no necessary connection with cosmogonies,\ndemonologies, and miraculous interferences. Their strength lies in their\nappeals, not to the reason, but to the ethical sense. I do not say that\neven the highest biblical ideal is exclusive of others or needs no\nsupplement. But I do believe that the human race is not yet, possibly may\nnever be, in a position to dispense with it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{55}\n\nI\n\nTHE RISE AND PROGRESS OF PALAEONTOLOGY\n\nThat application of the sciences of biology and geology, which is commonly\nknown as palaeontology, took its origin in the mind of the first person who,\nfinding something like a shell, or a bone, naturally embedded in gravel or\nrock, indulged in speculations upon the nature of this thing which he had\ndug out--this \"fossil\"--and upon the causes which had brought it into such\na position. In this rudimentary form, a high antiquity may safely be\nascribed to palaeontology, inasmuch as we know that, 500 years before the\nChristian era, the philosophic doctrines of Xenophanes were influenced by\nhis observations upon the fossil remains exposed in the quarries of\nSyracuse. From this time forth not only the philosophers, but the poets,\nthe historians, the geographers of antiquity occasionally refer to fossils;\nand, after the revival of learning, lively controversies arose respecting\ntheir real nature. But hardly more than two centuries have elapsed since\nthis fundamental problem was first exhaustively treated; it was only in the\nlast century that the archaeological value of fossils--their importance, I\nmean, as records of the history of the earth--was fully {56} recognised;\nthe first adequate investigation of the fossil remains of any large group\nof vertebrated animals is to be found in Cuvier's _Recherches sur les\nOssemens Fossiles_, completed in 1822; and, so modern is stratigraphical\npalaeontology, that its founder, William Smith, lived to receive the just\nrecognition of his services by the award of the first Wollaston Medal in\n1831.\n\nBut, although palaeontology is a comparatively youthful scientific\nspeciality, the mass of materials with which it has to deal is already\nprodigious. In the last fifty years the number of known fossil remains of\ninvertebrated animals has been trebled or quadrupled. The work of\ninterpretation of vertebrate fossils, the foundations of which were so\nsolidly laid by Cuvier, was carried on, with wonderful vigour and success,\nby Agassiz in Switzerland, by Von Meyer in Germany, and last, but not\nleast, by Owen in this country, while, in later years, a multitude of\nworkers have laboured in the same field. In many groups of the animal\nkingdom the number of fossil forms already known is as great as that of the\nexisting species. In some cases it is much greater; and there are entire\norders of animals of the existence of which we should know nothing except\nfor the evidence afforded by fossil remains. With all this it may be safely\nassumed that, at the present moment, we are not acquainted with a tithe of\nthe fossils which will sooner or later be discovered. If we may judge by\nthe profusion yielded within the last few years by the Tertiary formations\nof North America, there seems to be no limit to the {57} multitude of\nMammalian remains to be expected from that continent; and analogy leads us\nto expect similar riches in Eastern Asia, whenever the Tertiary formations\nof that region are as carefully explored. Again, we have as yet almost\neverything to learn respecting the terrestrial population of the Mesozoic\nepoch--and it seems as if the Western territories of the United States were\nabout to prove as instructive in regard to this point as they have in\nrespect of tertiary life. My friend Professor Marsh informs me that, within\ntwo years, remains of more than 160 distinct individuals of mammals,\nbelonging to twenty species and nine genera, have been found in a space not\nlarger than the floor of a good-sized room; while beds of the same age have\nyielded 300 reptiles, varying in size from a length of 60 feet or 80 feet\nto the dimensions of a rabbit.\n\nThe task which I have set myself to-night is to endeavour to lay before\nyou, as briefly as possible, a sketch of the successive steps by which our\npresent knowledge of the facts of palaeontology and of those conclusions\nfrom them which are indisputable, has been attained; and I beg leave to\nremind you, at the outset, that in attempting to sketch the progress of a\nbranch of knowledge to which innumerable labours have contributed, my\nbusiness is rather with generalisations than with details. It is my object\nto mark the epochs of palaeontology, not to recount all the events of its\nhistory.\n\nThat which I just now called the fundamental problem of palaeontology, the\nquestion which has to be {58} settled before any other can be profitably\ndiscussed, is this, What is the nature of fossils? Are they, as the healthy\ncommon sense of the ancient Greeks appears to have led them to assume\nwithout hesitation, the remains of animals and plants? Or are they, as was\nso generally maintained in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth\ncenturies, mere figured stones, portions of mineral matter which have\nassumed the forms of leaves and shells and bones, just as those portions of\nmineral matter which we call crystals take on the form of regular\ngeometrical solids? Or, again, are they, as others thought, the products of\nthe germs of animals and of the seeds of plants which have lost their way,\nas it were, in the bowels of the earth, and have achieved only an imperfect\nand abortive development? It is easy to sneer at our ancestors for being\ndisposed to reject the first in favour of one or other of the last two\nhypotheses; but it is much more profitable to try to discover why they, who\nwere really not one whit less sensible persons than our excellent selves,\nshould have been led to entertain views which strike us as absurd. The\nbelief in what is erroneously called spontaneous generation, that is to\nsay, in the development of living matter out of mineral matter, apart from\nthe agency of pre-existing living matter, as an ordinary occurrence at the\npresent day--which is still held by some of us, was universally accepted as\nan obvious truth by them. They could point to the arborescent forms assumed\nby hoar-frost and by sundry metallic minerals as evidence of the existence\nin nature of a \"plastic {59} force\" competent to enable inorganic matter to\nassume the form of organised bodies. Then, as every one who is familiar\nwith fossils knows, they present innumerable gradations, from shells and\nbones which exactly resemble the recent objects, to masses of mere stone\nwhich, however accurately they repeat the outward form of the organic body,\nhave nothing else in common with it; and, thence, to mere traces and faint\nimpressions in the continuous substance of the rock. What we now know to be\nthe results of the chemical changes which take place in the course of\nfossilisation, by which mineral is substituted for organic substance,\nmight, in the absence of such knowledge, be fairly interpreted as the\nexpression of a process of development in the opposite direction--from the\nmineral to the organic. Moreover, in an age when it would have seemed the\nmost absurd of paradoxes to suggest that the general level of the sea is\nconstant, while that of the solid land fluctuates up and down through\nthousands of feet in a secular ground swell, it may well have appeared far\nless hazardous to conceive that fossils are sports of nature than to accept\nthe necessary alternative, that all the inland regions and highlands, in\nthe rocks of which marine shells had been found, had once been covered by\nthe ocean. It is not so surprising, therefore, as it may at first seem,\nthat although such men as Leonardo da Vinci and Bernard Palissy took just\nviews of the nature of fossils, the opinion of the majority of their\ncontemporaries set strongly the other way; nor even that error maintained\nitself long after the {60} scientific grounds of the true interpretation of\nfossils had been stated, in a manner that left nothing to be desired, in\nthe latter half of the seventeenth century. The person who rendered this\ngood service to palaeontology was Nicolas Steno, professor of anatomy in\nFlorence, though a Dane by birth. Collectors of fossils at that day were\nfamiliar with certain bodies termed \"glossopetrae,\" and speculation was rife\nas to their nature. In the first half of the seventeenth century, Fabio\nColonna had tried to convince his colleagues of the famous Accademia dei\nLincei that the glossopetrae were merely fossil sharks' teeth, but his\narguments made no impression. Fifty years later, Steno reopened the\nquestion, and, by dissecting the head of a shark and pointing out the very\nexact correspondence of its teeth with the glossopetrae, left no rational\ndoubt as to the origin of the latter. Thus far, the work of Steno went\nlittle further than that of Colonna, but it fortunately occurred to him to\nthink out the whole subject of the interpretation of fossils, and the\nresult of his meditations was the publication, in 1669, of a little\ntreatise with the very quaint title of _De Solido intra Solidum naturaliter\ncontento_. The general course of Steno's argument may be stated in a few\nwords. Fossils are solid bodies which, by some natural process, have come\nto be contained within other solid bodies, namely, the rocks in which they\nare embedded; and the fundamental problem of palaeontology, stated\ngenerally, is this: \"Given a body endowed with a certain shape and produced\nin accordance with natural laws, to find {61} in that body itself the\nevidence of the place and manner of its production.\"[8] The only way of\nsolving this problem is by the application of the axiom that \"like effects\nimply like causes,\" or as Steno puts it, in reference to this particular\ncase, that \"bodies which are altogether similar have been produced in the\nsame way.\"[9] Hence, since the glossopetrae are altogether similar to\nsharks' teeth, they must have been produced by sharklike fishes; and since\nmany fossil shells correspond, down to the minutest details of structure,\nwith the shells of existing marine or freshwater animals, they must have\nbeen produced by similar animals; and the like reasoning is applied by\nSteno to the fossil bones of vertebrated animals, whether aquatic or\nterrestrial. To the obvious objection that many fossils are not altogether\nsimilar to their living analogues, differing in substance while agreeing in\nform, or being mere hollows or impressions, the surfaces of which are\nfigured in the same way as those of animal or vegetable organisms, Steno\nreplies by pointing out the changes which take place in organic remains\nembedded in the earth, and how their solid substance may be dissolved away\nentirely, or replaced by mineral matter, until nothing is left of the\noriginal but a cast, an impression, or a mere trace of its contours. The\nprinciples of investigation thus excellently stated and illustrated by\nSteno in 1669, are those which have, {62} consciously or unconsciously,\nguided the researches of palaeontologists ever since. Even that feat of\npalaeontology which has so powerfully impressed the popular imagination, the\nreconstruction of an extinct animal from a tooth or a bone, is based upon\nthe simplest imaginable application of the logic of Steno. A moment's\nconsideration will show, in fact, that Steno's conclusion that the\nglossopetrae are sharks' teeth implies the reconstruction of an animal from\nits tooth. It is equivalent to the assertion that the animal of which the\nglossopetrae are relics had the form and organisation of a shark; that it\nhad a skull, a vertebral column, and limbs similar to those which are\ncharacteristic of this group of fishes; that its heart, gills, and\nintestines presented the peculiarities which those of all sharks exhibit;\nnay, even that any hard parts which its integument contained were of a\ntotally different character from the scales of ordinary fishes. These\nconclusions are as certain as any based upon probable reasonings can be.\nAnd they are so, simply because a very large experience justifies us in\nbelieving that teeth of this particular form and structure are invariably\nassociated with the peculiar organisation of sharks, and are never found in\nconnection with other organisms. Why this should be we are not at present\nin a position even to imagine; we must take the fact as an empirical law of\nanimal morphology, the reason of which may possibly be one day found in the\nhistory of the evolution of the shark tribe, but for which it is hopeless\nto seek for an explanation in ordinary physiological reasonings. Every one\n{63} practically acquainted with palaeontology is aware that it is not every\ntooth, nor every bone, which enables us to form a judgment of the character\nof the animal to which it belonged; and that it is possible to possess many\nteeth, and even a large portion of the skeleton of an extinct animal, and\nyet be unable to reconstruct its skull or its limbs. It is only when the\ntooth or bone presents peculiarities, which we know by previous experience\nto be characteristic of a certain group, that we can safely predict that\nthe fossil belonged to an animal of the same group. Any one who finds a\ncow's grinder may be perfectly sure that it belonged to an animal which had\ntwo complete toes on each foot and ruminated; any one who finds a horse's\ngrinder may be as sure that it had one complete toe on each foot and did\nnot ruminate; but if ruminants and horses were extinct animals of which\nnothing but the grinders had ever been discovered, no amount of\nphysiological reasoning could have enabled us to reconstruct either animal,\nstill less to have divined the wide differences between the two. Cuvier, in\nthe _Discours sur les Revolutions de la Surface du Globe_, strangely\ncredits himself, and has ever since been credited by others, with the\ninvention of a new method of palaeontological research. But if you will turn\nto the _Recherches sur les Ossemens Fossiles_ and watch Cuvier, not\nspeculating, but working, you will find that his method is neither more nor\nless than that of Steno. If he was able to make his famous prophecy from\nthe jaw which lay upon the surface of a block of stone to the pelvis of the\nsame animal which lay hidden in it, it was not {64} because either he, or\nany one else, knew, or knows, why a certain form of jaw is, as a rule,\nconstantly accompanied by the presence of marsupial bones, but simply\nbecause experience has shown that these two structures are co-ordinated.\n\nThe settlement of the nature of fossils led at once to the next advance of\npalaeontology, viz. its application to the deciphering of the history of the\nearth. When it was admitted that fossils are remains of animals and plants,\nit followed that, in so far as they resemble terrestrial, or freshwater,\nanimals and plants, they are evidences of the existence of land, or fresh\nwater; and, in so far as they resemble marine organisms, they are evidences\nof the existence of the sea at the time at which they were parts of\nactually living animals and plants. Moreover, in the absence of evidence to\nthe contrary, it must be admitted that the terrestrial or the marine\norganisms implied the existence of land or sea at the place in which they\nwere found while they were yet living. In fact, such conclusions were\nimmediately drawn by everybody, from the time of Xenophanes downwards, who\nbelieved that fossils were really organic remains. Steno discusses their\nvalue as evidence of repeated alteration of marine and terrestrial\nconditions upon the soil of Tuscany in a manner worthy of a modern\ngeologist. The speculations of De Maillet in the beginning of the\neighteenth century turn upon fossils; and Buffon follows him very closely\nin those two remarkable works, the _Theorie de la Terre_ and the _Epoques\nde la Nature_, with {65} which he commenced and ended his career as a\nnaturalist.\n\nThe opening sentences of the _Epoques de la Nature_ show us how fully\nBuffon recognised the analogy of geological with archaeological inquiries.\n\"As in civil history we consult deeds, seek for coins, or decipher antique\ninscriptions in order to determine the epochs of human revolutions and fix\nthe date of moral events; so, in natural history, we must search the\narchives of the world, recover old monuments from the bowels of the earth,\ncollect their fragmentary remains, and gather into one body of evidence all\nthe signs of physical change which may enable us to look back upon the\ndifferent ages of nature. It is our only means of fixing some points in the\nimmensity of space, and of setting a certain number of waymarks along the\neternal path of time.\"\n\nBuffon enumerates five classes of these monuments of the past history of\nthe earth, and they are all facts of palaeontology. In the first place, he\nsays, shells and other marine productions are found all over the surface\nand in the interior of the dry land; and all calcareous rocks are made up\nof their remains. Secondly, a great many of these shells which are found in\nEurope are not now to be met with in the adjacent seas; and, in the slates\nand other deep-seated deposits, there are remains of fishes and of plants\nof which no species now exist in our latitudes, and which are either\nextinct, or exist only in more northern climates. Thirdly, in Siberia and\nin other northern regions of Europe and of Asia, bones and {66} teeth of\nelephants, rhinoceroses, and hippopotamuses occur in such numbers that\nthese animals must once have lived and multiplied in those regions,\nalthough at the present day they are confined to southern climates. The\ndeposits in which these remains are found are superficial, while those\nwhich contain shells and other marine remains lie much deeper. Fourthly,\ntusks and bones of elephants and hippopotamuses are found not only in the\nnorthern regions of the old world, but also in those of the new world,\nalthough, at present, neither elephants nor hippopotamuses occur in\nAmerica. Fifthly, in the middle of the continents, in regions most remote\nfrom the sea, we find an infinite number of shells, of which the most part\nbelong to animals of those kinds which still exist in southern seas, but of\nwhich many others have no living analogues; so that these species appear to\nbe lost, destroyed by some unknown cause. It is needless to inquire how far\nthese statements are strictly accurate; they are sufficiently so to justify\nBuffon's conclusions that the dry land was once beneath the sea; that the\nformation of the fossiliferous rocks must have occupied a vastly greater\nlapse of time than that traditionally ascribed to the age of the earth;\nthat fossil remains indicate different climatal conditions to have obtained\nin former times, and especially that the polar regions were once warmer;\nthat many species of animals and plants have become extinct; and that\ngeological change has had something to do with geographical distribution.\n\nBut these propositions almost constitute the framework of palaeontology. In\norder to complete it but {67} one addition was needed, and that was made,\nin the last years of the eighteenth century, by William Smith, whose work\ncomes so near our own times that many living men may have been personally\nacquainted with him. This modest land-surveyor, whose business took him\ninto many parts of England, profited by the peculiarly favourable\nconditions offered by the arrangement of our secondary strata to make a\ncareful examination and comparison of their fossil contents at different\npoints of the large area over which they extend. The result of his accurate\nand widely-extended observations was to establish the important truth that\neach stratum contains certain fossils which are peculiar to it; and that\nthe order in which the strata, characterised by these fossils, are\nsuperimposed one upon the other is always the same. This most important\ngeneralisation was rapidly verified and extended to all parts of the world\naccessible to geologists; and now it rests upon such an immense mass of\nobservations as to be one of the best established truths of natural\nscience. To the geologist the discovery was of infinite importance, as it\nenabled him to identify rocks of the same relative age, however their\ncontinuity might be interrupted or their composition altered. But to the\nbiologist it had a still deeper meaning, for it demonstrated that,\nthroughout the prodigious duration of time registered by the fossiliferous\nrocks, the living population of the earth had undergone continual changes,\nnot merely by the extinction of a certain number of the species which had\nat first existed, but by the continual generation {68} of new species, and\nthe no less constant extinction of old ones.\n\nThus the broad outlines of palaeontology, in so far as it is the common\nproperty of both the geologist and the biologist, were marked out at the\nclose of the last century. In tracing its subsequent progress I must\nconfine myself to the province of biology, and, indeed, to the influence of\npalaeontology upon zoological morphology. And I accept this limitation the\nmore willingly as the no less important topic of the bearing of geology and\nof palaeontology upon distribution has been luminously treated in the\naddress of the President of the Geographical Section.[10]\n\nThe succession of the species of animals and plants in time being\nestablished, the first question which the zoologist or the botanist had to\nask himself was, What is the relation of these successive species one to\nanother? And it is a curious circumstance that the most important event in\nthe history of palaeontology which immediately succeeded William Smith's\ngeneralisation was a discovery which, could it have been rightly\nappreciated at the time, would have gone far towards suggesting the answer,\nwhich was in fact delayed for more than half a century. I refer to Cuvier's\ninvestigation of the Mammalian fossils yielded by the quarries in the older\ntertiary rocks of Montmartre, among the chief results of which was the\nbringing to light of two genera of extinct hoofed quadrupeds, the\n_Anoplotherium_ and the _Palaeotherium_. The rich materials at Cuvier's\ndisposition enabled him {69} to obtain a full knowledge of the osteology\nand of the dentition of these two forms, and consequently to compare their\nstructure critically with that of existing hoofed animals. The effect of\nthis comparison was to prove that the _Anoplotherium_, though it presented\nmany points of resemblance with the pigs on the one hand and with the\nruminants on the other, differed from both to such an extent that it could\nfind a place in neither group. In fact, it held, in some respects, an\nintermediate position, tending to bridge over the interval between these\ntwo groups, which in the existing fauna are so distinct. In the same way,\nthe _Palaeotherium_ tended to connect forms so different as the tapir, the\nrhinoceros, and the horse. Subsequent investigations have brought to light\na variety of facts of the same order, the most curious and striking of\nwhich are those which prove the existence, in the mesozoic epoch, of a\nseries of forms intermediate between birds and reptiles--two classes of\nvertebrate animals which at present appear to be more widely separated than\nany others. Yet the interval between them is completely filled, in the\nmesozoic fauna, by birds which have reptilian characters on the one side,\nand reptiles which have ornithic characters on the other. So again, while\nthe group of fishes termed ganoids is at the present time so distinct from\nthat of the dipnoi, or mudfishes, that they have been reckoned as distinct\norders, the Devonian strata present us with forms of which it is impossible\nto say with certainty whether they are dipnoi or whether they are ganoids.\n{70}\n\nAgassiz's long and elaborate researches upon fossil fishes, published\nbetween 1833 and 1842, led him to suggest the existence of another kind of\nrelation between ancient and modern forms of life. He observed that the\noldest fishes present many characters which recall the embryonic conditions\nof existing fishes; and that, not only among fishes, but in several groups\nof the invertebrata which have a long palaeontological history, the latest\nforms are more modified, more specialised, than the earlier. The fact that\nthe dentition of the older tertiary ungulate and carnivorous mammals is\nalways complete, noticed by Professor Owen, illustrated the same\ngeneralisation.\n\nAnother no less suggestive observation was made by Mr. Darwin, whose\npersonal investigations during the voyage of the _Beagle_ led him to remark\nupon the singular fact, that the fauna, which immediately precedes that at\npresent existing in any geographical province of distribution, presents the\nsame peculiarities as its successor. Thus, in South America and in\nAustralia, the later tertiary or quaternary fossils show that the fauna\nwhich immediately preceded that of the present day was, in the one case, as\nmuch characterised by edentates and, in the other, by marsupials as it is\nnow, although the species of the older are largely different from those of\nthe newer fauna.\n\nHowever clearly these indications might point in one direction, the\nquestion of the exact relation of the successive forms of animal and\nvegetable life could be satisfactorily settled only in one way; namely, by\ncomparing, stage by stage, the series of {71} forms presented by one and\nthe same type throughout a long space of time. Within the last few years\nthis has been done fully in the case of the horse, less completely in the\ncase of the other principal types of the ungulata and of the carnivora; and\nall these investigations tend to one general result, namely, that, in any\ngiven series, the successive members of that series present a gradually\nincreasing specialisation of structure. That is to say, if any such mammal\nat present existing has specially modified and reduced limbs or dentition\nand complicated brain, its predecessors in time show less and less\nmodification and reduction in limbs and teeth and a less highly developed\nbrain. The labours of Gaudry, Marsh, and Cope furnish abundant\nillustrations of this law from the marvellous fossil wealth of Pikermi and\nthe vast uninterrupted series of tertiary rocks in the territories of North\nAmerica.\n\n\n\nI will now sum up the results of this sketch of the rise and progress of\npalaeontology. The whole fabric of palaeontology is based upon two\npropositions: the first is, that fossils are the remains of animals and\nplants; and the second is, that the stratified rocks in which they are\nfound are sedimentary deposits; and each of these propositions is founded\nupon the same axiom, that like effects imply like causes. If there is any\ncause competent to produce a fossil stem, or shell, or bone, except a\nliving being, then palaeontology has no foundation; if the stratification of\nthe rocks is not the effect of such causes as at present produce {72}\nstratification, we have no means of judging of the duration of past time,\nor of the order in which the forms of life have succeeded one another. But\nif these two propositions are granted, there is no escape, as it appears to\nme, from three very important conclusions. The first is that living matter\nhas existed upon the earth for a vast length of time, certainly for\nmillions of years. The second is that, during this lapse of time, the forms\nof living matter have undergone repeated changes, the effect of which has\nbeen that the animal and vegetable population, at any period of the earth's\nhistory, contains some species which did not exist at some antecedent\nperiod, and others which ceased to exist at some subsequent period. The\nthird is that, in the case of many groups of mammals and some of reptiles,\nin which one type can be followed through a considerable extent of\ngeological time, the series of different forms by which the type is\nrepresented, at successive intervals of this time, is exactly such as it\nwould be, if they had been produced by the gradual modification of the\nearliest forms of the series. These are facts of the history of the earth\nguaranteed by as good evidence as any facts in civil history.\n\nHitherto I have kept carefully clear of all the hypotheses to which men\nhave at various times endeavoured to fit the facts of palaeontology, or by\nwhich they have endeavoured to connect as many of these facts as they\nhappened to be acquainted with. I do not think it would be a profitable\nemployment of our time to discuss conceptions which doubtless have had\ntheir justification and even their use, but which {73} are now obviously\nincompatible with the well-ascertained truths of palaeontology. At present\nthese truths leave room for only two hypotheses. The first is that, in the\ncourse of the history of the earth, innumerable species of animals and\nplants have come into existence, independently of one another, innumerable\ntimes. This, of course, implies either that spontaneous generation on the\nmost astounding scale, and of animals such as horses and elephants, has\nbeen going on, as a natural process, through all the time recorded by the\nfossiliferous rocks; or it necessitates the belief in innumerable acts of\ncreation repeated innumerable times. The other hypothesis is, that the\nsuccessive species of animals and plants have arisen, the later by the\ngradual modification of the earlier. This is the hypothesis of evolution;\nand the palaeontological discoveries of the last decade are so completely in\naccordance with the requirements of this hypothesis that, if it had not\nexisted, the palaeontologist would have had to invent it.\n\nI have always had a certain horror of presuming to set a limit upon the\npossibilities of things. Therefore I will not venture to say that it is\nimpossible that the multitudinous species of animals and plants may have\nbeen produced, one separately from the other, by spontaneous generation;\nnor that it is impossible that they should have been independently\noriginated by an endless succession of miraculous creative acts. But I must\nconfess that both these hypotheses strike me as so astoundingly improbable,\nso devoid of a shred of either scientific or traditional support, that even\nif {74} there were no other evidence than that of palaeontology in its\nfavour, I should feel compelled to adopt the hypothesis of evolution.\nHappily, the future of palaeontology is independent of all hypothetical\nconsiderations. Fifty years hence, whoever undertakes to record the\nprogress of palaeontology will note the present time as the epoch in which\nthe law of succession of the forms of the higher animals was determined by\nthe observation of palaeontological facts. He will point out that, just as\nSteno and as Cuvier were enabled from their knowledge of the empirical laws\nof coexistence of the parts of animals to conclude from a part to the\nwhole, so the knowledge of the law of succession of forms empowered their\nsuccessors to conclude, from one or two terms of such a succession, to the\nwhole series; and thus to divine the existence of forms of life, of which,\nperhaps, no trace remains, at epochs of inconceivable remoteness in the\npast.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{75}\n\nII\n\nTHE INTERPRETERS OF GENESIS AND THE INTERPRETERS OF NATURE\n\nOur fabulist warns \"those who in quarrels interpose\" of the fate which is\nprobably in store for them; and, in venturing to place myself between so\npowerful a controversialist as Mr. Gladstone and the eminent divine whom he\nassaults with such vigour in the last number of this Review,[11] I am fully\naware that I run great danger of verifying Gay's prediction. Moreover, it\nis quite possible that my zeal in offering aid to a combatant so extremely\nwell able to take care of himself as M. Reville may be thought to savour of\nindiscretion.\n\nTwo considerations, however, have led me to face the double risk. The one\nis that though, in my judgment, M. Reville is wholly in the right in that\npart of the controversy to which I propose to restrict my observations,\nnevertheless he, as a foreigner, has very little chance of making the truth\nprevail with Englishmen against the authority and the dialectic skill of\nthe greatest master of persuasive rhetoric among English-speaking men of\nour time. {76} As the Queen's proctor intervenes, in certain cases, between\ntwo litigants in the interests of justice, so it may be permitted me to\ninterpose as a sort of uncommissioned science proctor. My second excuse for\nmy meddlesomeness is, that important questions of natural\nscience--respecting which neither of the combatants professes to speak as\nan expert--are involved in the controversy; and I think it is desirable\nthat the public should know what it is that natural science really has to\nsay on these topics, to the best belief of one who has been a diligent\nstudent of natural science for the last forty years.\n\nThe original _Prolegomenes de l'histoire des Religions_ has not come in my\nway; but I have read the translation of M. Reville's work, published in\nEngland under the auspices of Professor Max Mueller, with very great\ninterest. It puts more fairly and clearly than any book previously known to\nme, the view which a man of strong religious feelings, but at the same time\npossessing the information and the reasoning power which enable him to\nestimate the strength of scientific methods of inquiry and the weight of\nscientific truth, may be expected to take of the relation between science\nand religion.\n\nIn the chapter on \"The Primitive Revelation\" the scientific worth of the\naccount of the Creation given in the book of Genesis is estimated in terms\nwhich are as unquestionably respectful as, in my judgment, they are just;\nand, at the end of the chapter on \"Primitive Tradition,\" M. Reville\nappraises the value of pentateuchal anthropology in a way which I should\n{77} have thought sure of enlisting the assent of all competent judges,\neven if it were extended to the whole of the cosmogony and biology of\nGenesis:--\n\n    As, however, the original traditions of nations sprang up in an epoch\n    less remote than our own from the primitive life, it is indispensable\n    to consult them, to compare them, and to associate them with other\n    sources of information which are available. From this point of view,\n    the traditions recorded in Genesis possess, in addition to their own\n    peculiar charm, a value of the highest order; but we cannot ultimately\n    see in them more than a venerable fragment, well deserving attention,\n    of the great genesis of mankind.\n\nMr. Gladstone is of a different mind. He dissents from M. Reville's views\nrespecting the proper estimation of the pentateuchal traditions, no less\nthan he does from his interpretation of those Homeric myths which have been\nthe object of his own special study. In the latter case, Mr. Gladstone\ntells M. Reville that he is wrong on his own authority, to which, in such a\nmatter, all will pay due respect: in the former, he affirms himself to be\n\"wholly destitute of that kind of knowledge which carries authority,\" and\nhis rebuke is administered in the name and by the authority of natural\nscience.\n\nAn air of magisterial gravity hangs about the following passage:--\n\n    But the question is not here of a lofty poem, or a skilfully\n    constructed narrative: it is whether natural science, in the patient\n    exercise of its high calling to examine facts, finds that the works of\n    God cry out against what we have fondly believed to be His word and\n    tell another tale; or whether, in this nineteenth century of Christian\n    progress, it substantially echoes back the majestic sound, which,\n    before it existed as a pursuit, went forth into all lands. {78}\n\n    First, looking largely at the latter portion of the narrative, which\n    describes the creation of living organisms, and waiving details, on\n    some of which (as in v. 24) the Septuagint seems to vary from the\n    Hebrew, there is a grand fourfold division, set forth in an orderly\n    succession of times as follows: on the fifth day\n\n      1. The water-population;\n      2. The air-population;\n\n    and, on the sixth day,\n\n      3. The land-population of animals;\n      4. The land-population consummated in man.\n\n    Now this same fourfold order is understood to have been so affirmed in\n    our time by natural science, that it may be taken as a demonstrated\n    conclusion and established fact (p. 696).\n\n\"Understood?\" By whom? I cannot bring myself to imagine that Mr. Gladstone\nhas made so solemn and authoritative a statement on a matter of this\nimportance without due inquiry--without being able to found himself upon\nrecognised scientific authority. But I wish he had thought fit to name the\nsource from whence he has derived his information, as, in that case, I\ncould have dealt with his authority, and I should have thereby escaped the\nappearance of making an attack on Mr. Gladstone himself, which is in every\nway distasteful to me.\n\nFor I can meet the statement in the last paragraph of the above citation\nwith nothing but a direct negative. If I know anything at all about the\nresults attained by the natural science of our time, it is \"a demonstrated\nconclusion and established fact\" that the \"fourfold order\" given by Mr.\nGladstone is not that in which the evidence at our disposal {79} tends to\nshow that the water, air, and land-populations of the globe have made their\nappearance.\n\nPerhaps I may be told that Mr. Gladstone does give his authority--that he\ncites Cuvier, Sir John Herschel, and Dr. Whewell in support of his case. If\nthat has been Mr. Gladstone's intention in mentioning these eminent names,\nI may remark that, on this particular question, the only relevant authority\nis that of Cuvier. But great as Cuvier was, it is to be remembered that, as\nMr. Gladstone incidentally remarks, he cannot now be called a recent\nauthority. In fact, he has been dead more than half a century; and the\npalaeontology of our day is related to that of his, very much as the\ngeography of the sixteenth century is related to that of the fourteenth.\nSince 1832, when Cuvier died, not only a new world, but new worlds, of\nancient life have been discovered; and those who have most faithfully\ncarried on the work of the chief founder of palaeontology have done most to\ninvalidate the essentially negative grounds of his speculative adherence to\ntradition.\n\nIf Mr. Gladstone's latest information on these matters is derived from the\nfamous discourse prefixed to the _Ossemens Fossiles_, I can understand the\nposition he has taken up; if he has ever opened a respectable modern manual\nof palaeontology, or geology, I cannot. For the facts which demolish his\nwhole argument are of the commonest notoriety. But before proceeding to\nconsider the evidence for this assertion we must be clear about the meaning\nof the phraseology employed. {80}\n\nI apprehend that when Mr. Gladstone uses the term \"water-population\" he\nmeans those animals which in Genesis i. 21 (Revised Version) are spoken of\nas \"the great sea monsters and every living creature that moveth, which the\nwaters brought forth abundantly, after their kind.\" And I presume that it\nwill be agreed that whales and porpoises, sea fishes, and the innumerable\nhosts of marine invertebrated animals, are meant thereby. So\n\"air-population\" must be the equivalent of \"fowl\" in verse 20, and \"every\nwinged fowl after its kind,\" verse 21. I suppose I may take it for granted\nthat by \"fowl\" we have here to understand birds--at any rate primarily.\nSecondarily, it may be that the bats and the extinct pterodactyles, which\nwere flying reptiles, come under the same head. But whether all insects are\n\"creeping things\" of the land-population, or whether flying insects are to\nbe included under the denomination of \"winged fowl,\" is a point for the\ndecision of Hebrew exegetes. Lastly, I suppose I may assume that\n\"land-population\" signifies \"the cattle\" and \"the beast of the earth,\" and\n\"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,\" in verses 25 and 26;\npresumably, it comprehends all kinds of terrestrial animals, vertebrate and\ninvertebrate, except such as may be comprised under the head of the\n\"air-population.\"\n\nNow what I want to make clear is this: that if the terms\n\"water-population,\" \"air-population,\" and \"land-population\" are understood\nin the senses here defined, natural science has nothing to say in favour of\nthe proposition that they succeeded one another in {81} the order given by\nMr. Gladstone; but that, on the contrary, all the evidence we possess goes\nto prove that they did not. Whence it will follow that, if Mr. Gladstone\nhas interpreted Genesis rightly (on which point I am most anxious to be\nunderstood to offer no opinion), that interpretation is wholly\nirreconcilable with the conclusions at present accepted by the interpreters\nof nature--with everything that can be called \"a demonstrated conclusion\nand established fact\" of natural science. And be it observed that I am not\nhere dealing with a question of speculation, but with a question of fact.\n\nEither the geological record is sufficiently complete to afford us a means\nof determining the order in which animals have made their appearance on the\nglobe or it is not. If it is, the determination of that order is little\nmore than a mere matter of observation; if it is not, then natural science\nneither affirms nor refutes the \"fourfold order,\" but is simply silent.\n\nThe series of the fossiliferous deposits, which contain the remains of the\nanimals which have lived on the earth in past ages of its history, and\nwhich can alone afford the evidence required by natural science of the\norder of appearance of their different species, may be grouped in the\nmanner shown in the left-hand column of the following table, the oldest\nbeing at the bottom:--\n\n      Formations         First known appearance of\n  Quaternary.\n  Pliocene.\n  Miocene.\n  Eocene.              Vertebrate _air_-population (Bats).\n  {82}\n  Cretaceous.\n  Jurassic             Vertebrate _air_-population (Birds and\n      Pterodactyles).\n  Triassic.\n  Upper Palaeozoic.\n  Middle Palaeozoic     Vertebrate _land_-population (Amphibia,\n                         Reptilia [?]).\n  Lower Palaeozoic.\n    Silurian.          Vertebrate _water_-population (Fishes).\n                       Invertebrate _air_ and _land_-population (Flying\n                         Insects and Scorpions).\n    Cambrian           Invertebrate _water_-population (much\n                         earlier, if _Eozoon_ is animal).\n\nIn the right-hand column I have noted the group of strata in which,\naccording to our present information, the _land_, _air_, and\n_water_-populations respectively appear for the first time; and in\nconsequence of the ambiguity about the meaning of \"fowl,\" I have separately\nindicated the first appearance of bats, birds, flying reptiles, and flying\ninsects. It will be observed that, if \"fowl\" means only \"bird,\" or at most\nflying vertebrate, then the first certain evidence of the latter, in the\nJurassic epoch, is posterior to the first appearance of truly terrestrial\n_Amphibia_, and possibly of true reptiles, in the Carboniferous epoch\n(Middle Palaeozoic) by a prodigious interval of time.\n\nThe water-population of vertebrated animals first appears in the Upper\nSilurian.[12] Therefore, if we found ourselves on vertebrated animals and\ntake \"fowl\" to mean birds only, or, at most, flying vertebrates, natural\nscience says that the order of succession was water, land, and\nair-population, and {83} not--as Mr. Gladstone, founding himself on\nGenesis, says--water, air, land-population. If a chronicler of Greece\naffirmed that the age of Alexander preceded that of Pericles and\nimmediately succeeded that of the Trojan war, Mr. Gladstone would hardly\nsay that this order is \"understood to have been so affirmed by historical\nscience that it may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established\nfact.\" Yet natural science \"affirms\" his \"fourfold order\" to exactly the\nsame extent--neither more nor less.\n\nSuppose, however, that \"fowl\" is to be taken to include flying insects. In\nthat case, the first appearance of an air-population must be shifted back\nfor long ages, recent discovery having shown that they occur in rocks of\nSilurian age. Hence there might still have been hope for the fourfold\norder, were it not that the fates unkindly determined that\nscorpions--\"creeping things that creep on the earth\" _par\nexcellence_--turned up in Silurian strata nearly at the same time. So that,\nif the word in the original Hebrew translated \"fowl\" should really after\nall mean \"cockroach\"--and I have great faith in the elasticity of that\ntongue in the hands of Biblical exegetes--the order primarily suggested by\nthe existing evidence--\n\n  2. Land and air-population;\n  1. Water-population;\n\nand Mr. Gladstone's order--\n\n  3. Land-population;\n  2. Air-population;\n  1. Water-population;\n\n{84} can by no means be made to coincide. As a matter of fact, then, the\nstatement so confidently put forward turns out to be devoid of foundation\nand in direct contradiction of the evidence at present at our disposal.[13]\n\nIf, stepping beyond that which may be learned from the facts of the\nsuccessive appearance of the forms of animal life upon the surface of the\nglobe, in so far as they are yet made known to us by natural science, we\napply our reasoning faculties to the task of finding out what those\nobserved facts mean, the present conclusions of the interpreters of nature\nappear to be no less directly in conflict with those of the latest\ninterpreter of Genesis.\n\nMr. Gladstone appears to admit that there is some truth in the doctrine of\nevolution, and indeed places it under very high patronage.\n\n    I contend that evolution in its highest form has not been a {85} thing\n    heretofore unknown to history, to philosophy, or to theology. I contend\n    that it was before the mind of Saint Paul when he taught that in the\n    fulness of time God sent forth His Son, and of Eusebius when he wrote\n    the _Preparation for the Gospel_, and of Augustine when he composed the\n    _City of God_ (p. 706).\n\nHas any one ever disputed the contention, thus solemnly enunciated, that\nthe doctrine of evolution was not invented the day before yesterday? Has\nany one ever dreamed of claiming it as a modern innovation? Is there any\none so ignorant of the history of philosophy as to be unaware that it is\none of the forms in which speculation embodied itself long before the time\neither of the Bishop of Hippo or of the Apostle to the Gentiles? Is Mr.\nGladstone, of all people in the world, disposed to ignore the founders of\nGreek philosophy, to say nothing of Indian sages to whom evolution was a\nfamiliar notion ages before Paul of Tarsus was born? But it is ungrateful\nto cavil at even the most oblique admission of the possible value of one of\nthose affirmations of natural science which really may be said to be \"a\ndemonstrated conclusion and established fact.\" I note it with pleasure, if\nonly for the purpose of introducing the observation that, if there is any\ntruth whatever in the doctrine of evolution as applied to animals, Mr.\nGladstone's gloss on Genesis in the following passage is hardly happy:--\n\n  God created\n  (_a_) The water-population;\n  (_b_) The air-population.\n  And they receive His benediction (v. 20-23).\n\n{86}\n\n    6. Pursuing this regular progression from the lower to the higher, from\n    the simple to the complex, the text now gives us the work of the sixth\n    \"day,\" which supplies the land-population, air and water having been\n    already supplied (pp. 695, 696).\n\nThe gloss to which I refer is the assumption that the \"air-population\"\nforms a term in the order of progression from lower to higher, from simple\nto complex--the place of which lies between the water-population below and\nthe land-population above--and I speak of it as a \"gloss,\" because the\npentateuchal writer is nowise responsible for it.\n\nBut it is not true that the air-population, as a whole, is \"lower\" or less\n\"complex\" than the land-population. On the contrary, every beginner in the\nstudy of animal morphology is aware that the organisation of a bat, of a\nbird, or of a pterodactyle presupposes that of a terrestrial quadruped; and\nthat it is intelligible only as an extreme modification of the organisation\nof a terrestrial mammal or reptile. In the same way winged insects (if they\nare to be counted among the \"air-population\") presuppose insects which were\nwingless, and, therefore, as \"creeping things,\" were part of the\nland-population. Thus theory is as much opposed as observation to the\nadmission that natural science endorses the succession of animal life which\nMr. Gladstone finds in Genesis. On the contrary, a good many\nrepresentatives of natural science would be prepared to say, on theoretical\ngrounds alone, that it is incredible that the \"air-population\" should have\nappeared before the \"land-population\"--and that, if this assertion is to be\n{87} found in Genesis, it merely demonstrates the scientific worthlessness\nof the story of which it forms a part.\n\nIndeed, we may go further. It is not even admissible to say that the\nwater-population, as a whole, appeared before the air and the\nland-populations. According to the Authorised Version, Genesis especially\nmentions, among the animals created on the fifth day, \"great whales,\" in\nplace of which the Revised Version reads \"great sea monsters.\" Far be it\nfrom me to give an opinion which rendering is right, or whether either is\nright. All I desire to remark is, that if whales and porpoises, dugongs and\nmanatees, are to be regarded as members of the water-population (and if\nthey are not, what animals can claim the designation?), then that much of\nthe water-population has, as certainly, originated later than the\nland-population as bats and birds have. For I am not aware that any\ncompetent judge would hesitate to admit that the organisation of these\nanimals shows the most obvious signs of their descent from terrestrial\nquadrupeds.\n\nA similar criticism applies to Mr. Gladstone's assumption that, as the\nfourth act of that \"orderly succession of times\" enunciated in Genesis,\n\"the land-population consummated in man.\"\n\nIf this means simply that man is the final term in the evolutional series\nof which he forms a part, I do not suppose that any objection will be\nraised to that statement on the part of students of natural science. But if\nthe pentateuchal author goes further than this, and intends to say that\nwhich is ascribed to him by {88} Mr. Gladstone, I think natural science\nwill have to enter a _caveat_. It is by not any means certain that man--I\nmean the species _Homo sapiens_ of zoological terminology--has\n\"consummated\" the land-population in the sense of appearing at a later\nperiod of time than any other. Let me make my meaning clear by an example.\nFrom a morphological point of view, our beautiful and useful\ncontemporary--I might almost call him colleague--the horse (_Equus\ncaballus_), is the last term of the evolutional series to which he belongs,\njust as _Homo sapiens_ is the last term of the series of which he is a\nmember. If I want to know whether the species _Equus caballus_ made its\nappearance on the surface of the globe before or after _Homo sapiens_,\ndeduction from known laws does not help me. There is no reason, that I know\nof, why one should have appeared sooner or later than the other. If I turn\nto observation, I find abundant remains of _Equus caballus_ in Quaternary\nstrata, perhaps a little earlier. The existence of _Homo sapiens_ in the\nQuaternary epoch is also certain. Evidence has been adduced in favour of\nman's existence in the Pliocene, or even in the Miocene epoch. It does not\nsatisfy me; but I have no reason to doubt that the fact may be so,\nnevertheless. Indeed, I think it is quite possible that further research\nwill show that _Homo sapiens_ existed, not only before _Equus caballus_,\nbut before many other of the existing forms of animal life; so that, if all\nthe species of animals have been separately created, man, in this case,\nwould by no means be the \"consummation\" of the land-population. {89}\n\nI am raising no objection to the position of the fourth term in Mr.\nGladstone's \"order\"--on the facts, as they stand, it is quite open to any\none to hold, as a pious opinion, that the fabrication of man was the acme\nand final achievement of the process of peopling the globe. But it must not\nbe said that natural science counts this opinion among her \"demonstrated\nconclusions and established facts,\" for there would be just as much, or as\nlittle, reason for ranging the contrary opinion among them.\n\nIt may seem superfluous to add to the evidence that Mr. Gladstone has been\nutterly misled in supposing that his interpretation of Genesis receives any\nsupport from natural science. But it is as well to do one's work thoroughly\nwhile one is about it; and I think it may be advisable to point out that\nthe facts, as they are at present known, not only refute Mr. Gladstone's\ninterpretation of Genesis in detail, but are opposed to the central idea on\nwhich it appears to be based.\n\nThere must be some position from which the reconcilers of science and\nGenesis will not retreat, some central idea the maintenance of which is\nvital and its refutation fatal. Even if they now allow that the words \"the\nevening and the morning\" have not the least reference to a natural day, but\nmean a period of any number of millions of years that may be necessary;\neven if they are driven to admit that the word \"creation,\" which so many\nmillions of pious Jews and Christians have held, and still hold, to mean a\nsudden act of the Deity, signifies a process of gradual {90} evolution of\none species from another, extending through immeasurable time; even if they\nare willing to grant that the asserted coincidence of the order of Nature\nwith the \"fourfold order\" ascribed to Genesis is an obvious error instead\nof an established truth; they are surely prepared to make a last stand upon\nthe conception which underlies the whole, and which constitutes the essence\nof Mr. Gladstone's \"fourfold division, set forth in an orderly succession\nof times.\" It is, that the animal species which compose the\nwater-population, the air-population, and the land-population respectively,\noriginated during three distinct and successive periods of time, and only\nduring those periods of time.\n\nThis statement appears to me to be the interpretation of Genesis which Mr.\nGladstone supports, reduced to its simplest expression. \"Period of time\" is\nsubstituted for \"day\"; \"originated\" is substituted for \"created\"; and \"any\norder required\" for that adopted by Mr. Gladstone. It is necessary to make\nthis proviso, for if \"day\" may mean a few million years, and \"creation\" may\nmean evolution, then it is obvious that the order (1) water-population, (2)\nair-population, (3) land-population, may also mean (1) water-population,\n(2) land-population, (3) air-population; and it would be unkind to bind\ndown the reconcilers to this detail when one has parted with so many others\nto oblige them.\n\nBut even this sublimated essence of the pentateuchal doctrine (if it be\nsuch) remains as discordant with natural science as ever. {91}\n\nIt is not true that the species composing any one of the three populations\noriginated during any one of three successive periods of time, and not at\nany other of these.\n\nUndoubtedly, it is in the highest degree probable that animal life appeared\nfirst under aquatic conditions; that terrestrial forms appeared later, and\nflying animals only after land animals; but it is, at the same time,\ntestified by all the evidence we possess, that the great majority, if not\nthe whole, of the primordial species of each division have long since died\nout and have been replaced by a vast succession of new forms. Hundreds of\nthousands of animal species, as distinct as those which now compose our\nwater, land, and air-populations, have come into existence and died out\nagain, throughout the aeons of geological time which separate us from the\nlower Palaeozoic epoch, when, as I have pointed out, our present evidence of\nthe existence of such distinct populations commences. If the species of\nanimals have all been separately created, then it follows that hundreds of\nthousands of acts of creative energy have occurred, at intervals,\nthroughout the whole time recorded by the fossiliferous rocks; and, during\nthe greater part of that time, the \"creation\" of the members of the water,\nland, and air-populations must have gone on contemporaneously.\n\nIf we represent the water, land, and air-populations by _a_, _b_, and _c_\nrespectively, and take vertical succession on the page to indicate order in\ntime, then the following schemes will roughly shadow forth the contrast I\nhave been endeavouring to explain:-- {92}\n\n      Genesis (as interpreted by   Nature (as interpreted by\n          Mr. Gladstone).             natural science).\n              b b b                   c^1 a^3  b^2\n              c c c                   c   a^2  b^1\n              a a a                   b   a^1  b\n                                      a   a    a\n\nSo far as I can see, there is only one resource left for those modern\nrepresentatives of Sisyphus, the reconcilers of Genesis with science; and\nit has the advantage of being founded on a perfectly legitimate appeal to\nour ignorance. It has been seen that, on any interpretation of the terms\nwater-population and land-population, it must be admitted that invertebrate\nrepresentatives of these populations existed during the lower Palaeozoic\nepoch. No evolutionist can hesitate to admit that other land animals (and\npossibly vertebrates among them) may have existed during that time, of the\nhistory of which we know so little; and, further, that scorpions are\nanimals of such high organisation that it is highly probable their\nexistence indicates that of a long antecedent land-population of a similar\ncharacter.\n\nThen, since the land-population is said not to have been created until the\nsixth day, it necessarily follows that the evidence of the order in which\nanimals appeared must be sought in the record of those older Palaeozoic\ntimes in which only traces of the water-population have as yet been\ndiscovered.\n\nTherefore, if any one chooses to say that the creative work took place in\nthe Cambrian or Laurentian epoch, in exactly that manner which Mr.\nGladstone does, and natural science does not, affirm, natural {93} science\nis not in a position to disprove the accuracy of the statement. Only one\ncannot have one's cake and eat it too, and such safety from the\ncontradiction of science means the forfeiture of her support.\n\nWhether the account of the work of the first, second, and third days in\nGenesis would be confirmed by the demonstration of the truth of the nebular\nhypothesis; whether it is corroborated by what is known of the nature and\nprobable relative antiquity of the heavenly bodies; whether, if the Hebrew\nword translated \"firmament\" in the Authorised Version really means\n\"expanse,\" the assertion that the waters are partly under this \"expanse\"\nand partly above it would be any more confirmed by the ascertained facts of\nphysical geography and meteorology than it was before; whether the creation\nof the whole vegetable world, and especially of \"grass, herb yielding seed\nafter its kind, and tree bearing fruit,\" before any kind of animal, is\n\"affirmed\" by the apparently plain teaching of botanical palaeontology, that\ngrasses and fruit-trees originated long subsequently to animals--all these\nare questions which, if I mistake not, would be answered decisively in the\nnegative by those who are specially conversant with the sciences involved.\nAnd it must be recollected that the issue raised by Mr. Gladstone is not\nwhether, by some effort of ingenuity, the pentateuchal story can be shown\nto be not disprovable by scientific knowledge, but whether it is supported\nthereby.\n\n    There is nothing, then, in the criticisms of Dr. Reville but what\n    rather tends to confirm than to impair the old-fashioned {94} belief\n    that there is a revelation in the book of Genesis (p. 694).\n\nThe form into which Mr. Gladstone has thought fit to throw this opinion\nleaves me in doubt as to its substance. I do not understand how a hostile\ncriticism can, under any circumstances, tend to confirm that which it\nattacks. If, however, Mr. Gladstone merely means to express his personal\nimpression, \"as one wholly destitute of that kind of knowledge which\ncarries authority,\" that he has destroyed the value of these criticisms, I\nhave neither the wish nor the right to attempt to disturb his faith. On the\nother hand, I may be permitted to state my own conviction that, so far as\nnatural science is involved, M. Reville's observations retain the exact\nvalue they possessed before Mr. Gladstone attacked them.\n\n\n\nTrusting that I have now said enough to secure the author of a wise and\nmoderate disquisition upon a topic which seems fated to stir unwisdom and\nfanaticism to their depths, a fuller measure of justice than has hitherto\nbeen accorded to him, I retire from my self-appointed championship, with\nthe hope that I shall not hereafter be called upon by M. Reville to\napologise for damage done to his strong case by imperfect or impulsive\nadvocacy. But, perhaps, I may be permitted to add a word or two, on my own\naccount, in reference to the great question of the relations between\nscience and religion; since it is one about which I have thought a good\ndeal ever since I have been able to think at all; and about which I have\n{95} ventured to express my views publicly, more than once, in the course\nof the last thirty years.\n\nThe antagonism between science and religion, about which we hear so much,\nappears to me to be purely factitious--fabricated, on the one hand, by\nshort-sighted religious people who confound a certain branch of science,\ntheology, with religion; and, on the other, by equally short-sighted\nscientific people who forget that science takes for its province only that\nwhich is susceptible of clear intellectual comprehension; and that, outside\nthe boundaries of that province, they must be content with imagination,\nwith hope, and with ignorance.\n\nIt seems to me that the moral and intellectual life of the civilised\nnations of Europe is the product of that interaction, sometimes in the way\nof antagonism, sometimes in that of profitable interchange, of the Semitic\nand the Aryan races, which commenced with the dawn of history, when Greek\nand Phoenician came in contact, and has been continued by Carthaginian and\nRoman, by Jew and Gentile, down to the present day. Our art (except,\nperhaps, music) and our science are the contributions of the Aryan; but the\nessence of our religion is derived from the Semite. In the eighth century\nB.C., in the heart of a world of idolatrous polytheists, the Hebrew\nprophets put forth a conception of religion which appears to me to be as\nwonderful an inspiration of genius as the art of Pheidias or the science of\nAristotle.\n\n\"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to {96} do justly, and to love\nmercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?\"\n\nIf any so-called religion takes away from this great saying of Micah, I\nthink it wantonly mutilates, while, if it adds thereto, I think it\nobscures, the perfect ideal of religion.\n\nBut what extent of knowledge, what acuteness of scientific criticism, can\ntouch this, if any one possessed of knowledge, or acuteness, could be\nabsurd enough to make the attempt? Will the progress of research prove that\njustice is worthless and mercy hateful; will it ever soften the bitter\ncontrast between our actions and our aspirations; or show us the bounds of\nthe universe, and bid us say, Go to, now we comprehend the infinite? A\nfaculty of wrath lay in those ancient Israelites, and surely the prophet's\nstaff would have made swift acquaintance with the head of the scholar who\nhad asked Micah whether, peradventure, the Lord further required of him an\nimplicit belief in the accuracy of the cosmogony of Genesis!\n\nWhat we are usually pleased to call religion nowadays is, for the most\npart, Hellenised Judaism; and, not unfrequently, the Hellenic element\ncarries with it a mighty remnant of old-world paganism and a great infusion\nof the worst and weakest products of Greek scientific speculation; while\nfragments of Persian and Babylonian, or rather Accadian, mythology burden\nthe Judaic contribution to the common stock.\n\nThe antagonism of science is not to religion, but to the heathen survivals\nand the bad philosophy under which religion herself is often wellnigh\ncrushed. {97} And, for my part, I trust that this antagonism will never\ncease; but that, to the end of time, true science will continue to fulfil\none of her most beneficent functions, that of relieving men from the burden\nof false science which is imposed upon them in the name of religion.\n\nThis is the work that M. Reville and men such as he are doing for us; this\nis the work which his opponents are endeavouring, consciously or\nunconsciously, to hinder.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{98}\n\nIII\n\nMR. GLADSTONE AND GENESIS\n\nIn controversy, as in courtship, the good old rule to be off with the old\nbefore one is on with the new, greatly commends itself to my sense of\nexpediency. And, therefore, it appears to me desirable that I should\npreface such observations as I may have to offer upon the cloud of\narguments (the relevancy of which to the issue which I had ventured to\nraise is not always obvious) put forth by Mr. Gladstone in the January\nnumber of this Review,[14] by an endeavour to make clear to such of our\nreaders as have not had the advantage of a forensic education the present\nnet result of the discussion.\n\nI am quite aware that, in undertaking this task, I run all the risks to\nwhich the man who presumes to deal judicially with his own cause is liable.\nBut it is exactly because I do not shun that risk, but, rather, earnestly\ndesire to be judged by him who cometh after me, provided that he has the\nknowledge and impartiality appropriate to a judge, that I adopt my present\ncourse.\n\n{99}\n\nIn the article on \"The Dawn of Creation and Worship,\" it will be remembered\nthat Mr. Gladstone unreservedly commits himself to three propositions. The\nfirst is that, according to the writer of the Pentateuch, the\n\"water-population,\" the \"air-population,\" and the \"land-population\" of the\nglobe were created successively, in the order named. In the second place,\nMr. Gladstone authoritatively asserts that this (as part of his \"fourfold\norder\") has been \"so affirmed in our time by natural science, that it may\nbe taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact.\" In the third\nplace, Mr. Gladstone argues that the fact of this coincidence of the\npentateuchal story with the results of modern investigation makes it\n\"impossible to avoid the conclusion, first, that either this writer was\ngifted with faculties passing all human experience, or else his knowledge\nwas divine.\" And having settled to his own satisfaction that the first\n\"branch of the alternative is truly nominal and unreal,\" Mr. Gladstone\ncontinues, \"So stands the plea for a revelation of truth from God, a plea\nonly to be met by questioning its possibility\" (p. 697).\n\nI am a simple-minded person, wholly devoid of subtlety of intellect, so\nthat I willingly admit that there may be depths of alternative meaning in\nthese propositions out of all soundings attainable by my poor plummet.\nStill there are a good many people who suffer under a like intellectual\nlimitation; and, for once in my life, I feel that I have the chance of\nattaining that position of a representative of average opinion which\nappears to be the modern ideal of a {100} leader of men, when I make free\nconfession that, after turning the matter over in my mind, with all the aid\nderived from a careful consideration of Mr. Gladstone's reply, I cannot get\naway from my original conviction that, if Mr. Gladstone's second\nproposition can be shown to be not merely inaccurate, but directly\ncontradictory of facts known to every one who is acquainted with the\nelements of natural science, the third proposition collapses of itself.\n\nAnd it was this conviction which led me to enter upon the present\ndiscussion. I fancied that if my respected clients, the people of average\nopinion and capacity, could once be got distinctly to conceive that Mr.\nGladstone's views as to the proper method of dealing with grave and\ndifficult scientific and religious problems had permitted him to base a\nsolemn \"plea for a revelation of truth from God\" upon an error as to a\nmatter of fact, from which the intelligent perusal of a manual of\npalaeontology would have saved him, I need not trouble myself to occupy\ntheir time and attention with further comments upon his contribution to\napologetic literature. It is for others to judge whether I have efficiently\ncarried out my project or not. It certainly does not count for much that I\nshould be unable to find any flaw in my own case, but I think it counts for\na good deal that Mr. Gladstone appears to have been equally unable to do\nso. He does, indeed, make a great parade of authorities, and I have the\ngreatest respect for those authorities whom Mr. Gladstone mentions. If he\nwill get them to sign a joint memorial to the effect that our present {101}\npalaeontological evidence proves that birds appeared before the\n\"land-population\" of terrestrial reptiles, I shall think it my duty to\nreconsider my position--but not till then.\n\nIt will be observed that I have cautiously used the word \"appears\" in\nreferring to what seems to me to be absence of any real answer to my\ncriticisms in Mr. Gladstone's reply. For I must honestly confess that,\nnotwithstanding long and painful strivings after clear insight, I am still\nuncertain whether Mr. Gladstone's \"Defence\" means that the great \"plea for\na revelation from God\" is to be left to perish in the dialectic desert; or\nwhether it is to be withdrawn under the protection of such skirmishers as\nare available for covering retreat.\n\nIn particular, the remarkable disquisition which covers pages 11 to 14 of\nMr. Gladstone's last contribution has greatly exercised my mind. Socrates\nis reported to have said of the works of Heraclitus that he who attempted\nto comprehend them should be a \"Delian swimmer,\" but that, for his part,\nwhat he could understand was so good that he was disposed to believe in the\nexcellence of that which he found unintelligible. In endeavouring to make\nmyself master of Mr. Gladstone's meaning in these pages, I have often been\novercome by a feeling analogous to that of Socrates, but not quite the\nsame. That which I do understand, in fact, has appeared to me so very much\nthe reverse of good, that I have sometimes permitted myself to doubt the\nvalue of that which I do not understand. {102}\n\nIn this part of Mr. Gladstone's reply, in fact, I find nothing of which the\nbearing upon my arguments is clear to me, except that which relates to the\nquestion whether reptiles, so far as they are represented by tortoises and\nthe great majority of lizards and snakes, which are land animals, are\ncreeping things in the sense of the pentateuchal writer or not.\n\nI have every respect for the singer of the Song of the Three Children\n(whoever he may have been); I desire to cast no shadow of doubt upon, but,\non the contrary, marvel at, the exactness of Mr. Gladstone's information as\nto the considerations which \"affected the method of the Mosaic writer\"; nor\ndo I venture to doubt that the inconvenient intrusion of these contemptible\nreptiles--\"a family fallen from greatness\" (p. 14), a miserable decayed\naristocracy reduced to mere \"skulkers about the earth\" (_ibid._)--in\nconsequence, apparently, of difficulties about the occupation of land\narising out of the earth-hunger of their former serfs, the mammals--into an\napologetic argument, which otherwise would run quite smoothly, is in every\nway to be deprecated. Still, the wretched creatures stand there,\nimportunately demanding notice; and, however different may be the practice\nin that contentious atmosphere with which Mr. Gladstone expresses and\nlaments his familiarity, in the atmosphere of science it really is of no\navail whatever to shut one's eyes to facts, or to try to bury them out of\nsight under a tumulus of rhetoric. That is my experience of \"the Elysian\nregions of Science,\" wherein it is a pleasure to me to think that a man of\nMr. Gladstone's {103} intimate knowledge of English life, during the last\nquarter of a century, believes my philosophic existence to have been\nrounded off in unbroken equanimity.\n\nHowever reprehensible, and indeed contemptible, terrestrial reptiles may\nbe, the only question which appears to me to be relevant to my argument is\nwhether these creatures are or are not comprised under the denomination of\n\"everything that creepeth upon the ground.\"\n\nMr. Gladstone speaks of the author of the first chapter of Genesis as \"the\nMosaic writer\"; I suppose, therefore, that he will admit that it is equally\nproper to speak of the author of Leviticus as the \"Mosaic writer.\" Whether\nsuch a phrase would be used by any one who had an adequate conception of\nthe assured results of modern Biblical criticism is another matter; but, at\nany rate, it cannot be denied that Leviticus has as much claim to Mosaic\nauthorship as Genesis. Therefore, if one wants to know the sense of a\nphrase used in Genesis, it will be well to see what Leviticus has to say on\nthe matter. Hence, I commend the following extract from the eleventh\nchapter of Leviticus to Mr. Gladstone's serious attention:--\n\n    And these are they which are unclean unto you among the creeping things\n    that creep upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the great\n    lizard after its kind, and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the\n    sand-lizard, and the chameleon. These are they which are unclean to you\n    among all that creep (v. 29-31).\n\nThe merest Sunday-school exegesis therefore suffices {104} to prove that\nwhen the \"Mosaic writer\" in Genesis i. 24 speaks of \"creeping things,\" he\nmeans to include lizards among them.\n\nThis being so, it is agreed, on all hands, that terrestrial lizards, and\nother reptiles allied to lizards, occur in the Permian strata. It is\nfurther agreed that the Triassic strata were deposited after these.\nMoreover, it is well known that, even if certain footprints are to be taken\nas unquestionable evidence of the existence of birds, they are not known to\noccur in rocks earlier than the Trias, while indubitable remains of birds\nare to be met with only much later. Hence it follows that natural science\ndoes not \"affirm\" the statement that birds were made on the fifth day, and\n\"everything that creepeth on the ground\" on the sixth, on which Mr.\nGladstone rests his order; for, as is shown by Leviticus, the \"Mosaic\nwriter\" includes lizards among his \"creeping things.\"\n\nPerhaps I have given myself superfluous trouble in the preceding argument,\nfor I find that Mr. Gladstone is willing to assume (he does not say to\nadmit) that the statement in the text of Genesis as to reptiles cannot \"in\nall points be sustained\" (p. 16). But my position is that it cannot be\nsustained in any point, so that, after all, it has perhaps been as well to\ngo over the evidence again. And then Mr. Gladstone proceeds as if nothing\nhad happened to tell us that--\n\n    There remain great unshaken facts to be weighed. First, the fact that\n    such a record should have been made at all.\n\nAs most peoples have their cosmogonies, this \"fact\" does not strike me as\nhaving much value. {105}\n\n    Secondly, the fact that, instead of dwelling in generalities, it has\n    placed itself under the severe conditions of a chronological order\n    reaching from the first _nisus_ of chaotic matter to the consummated\n    production of a fair and goodly, a furnished and a peopled world.\n\nThis \"fact\" can be regarded as of value only by ignoring the fact\ndemonstrated in my previous paper, that natural science does not confirm\nthe order asserted so far as living things are concerned; and by upsetting\na fact to be brought to light presently, to wit, that, in regard to the\nrest of the pentateuchal cosmogony, prudent science has very little to say\none way or the other.\n\n    Thirdly, the fact that its cosmogony seems, in the light of the\n    nineteenth century, to draw more and more of countenance from the best\n    natural philosophy.\n\nI have already questioned the accuracy of this statement, and I do not\nobserve that mere repetition adds to its value.\n\n    And, fourthly, that it has described the successive origins of the five\n    great categories of present life with which human experience was and is\n    conversant, in that order which geological authority confirms.\n\nBy comparison with a sentence on page 14, in which a fivefold order is\nsubstituted for the \"fourfold order,\" on which the \"plea for revelation\"\nwas originally founded, it appears that these five categories are \"plants,\nfishes, birds, mammals, and man,\" which, Mr. Gladstone affirms, \"are given\nto us in Genesis in the order of succession in which they are also given by\nthe latest geological authorities.\" {106}\n\nI must venture to demur to this statement. I showed, in my previous paper,\nthat there is no reason to doubt that the term \"great sea monster\" (used in\nGen. i. 21) includes the most conspicuous of great sea animals--namely,\nwhales, dolphins, porpoises, manatees, and dugongs;[15] and, as these are\nindubitable mammals, it is impossible to affirm that mammals come after\nbirds, which are said to have been created on the same day. Moreover, I\npointed out that as these Cetacea and Sirenia are certainly modified land\nanimals, their existence implies the antecedent existence of land mammals.\n\nFurthermore, I have to remark that the term \"fishes,\" as used, technically,\nin zoology, by no means covers all the moving creatures that have life,\nwhich are bidden to \"fill the waters in the seas\" (Gen. i. 20-22). Marine\nmollusks and crustacea, echinoderms, corals, and foraminifera are not\ntechnically fishes. But they are abundant in the palaeozoic rocks, ages upon\nages older than those in which the first evidences of true fishes appear.\nAnd if, in a geological book, Mr. Gladstone finds the quite true statement\nthat plants appeared before fishes, it is only by a complete\nmisunderstanding that he can be led to imagine it serves his purpose. As a\nmatter of fact, at the present moment, it is a question whether, on the\nbare evidence afforded by fossils, the marine creeping thing or the marine\nplant has the seniority. {107} No cautious palaeontologist would express a\ndecided opinion on the matter. But, if we are to read the pentateuchal\nstatement as a scientific document (and, in spite of all protests to the\ncontrary, those who bring it into comparison with science do seek to make a\nscientific document of it), then, as it is quite clear that only\nterrestrial plants of high organisation are spoken of in verses 11 and 12,\nno palaeontologist would hesitate to say that, at present, the records of\nsea animal life are vastly older than those of any land plant describable\nas \"grass, herb yielding seed, or fruit-tree.\"\n\nThus, although, in Mr. Gladstone's \"Defence,\" the \"old order passeth into\nnew,\" his case is not improved. The fivefold order is no more \"affirmed in\nour time by natural science\" to be \"a demonstrated conclusion and\nestablished fact\" than the fourfold order was. Natural science appears to\nme to decline to have anything to do with either; they are as wrong in\ndetail as they are mistaken in principle.\n\nThere is another change of position, the value of which is not so apparent\nto me, as it may well seem to be to those who are unfamiliar with the\nsubject under discussion. Mr. Gladstone discards his three groups of\n\"water-population,\" \"air-population,\" and \"land-population,\" and\nsubstitutes for them (1) fishes, (2) birds, (3) mammals, (4) man. Moreover,\nit is assumed, in a note, that \"the higher or ordinary mammals\" alone were\nknown to the \"Mosaic writer\" (p. 6). No doubt it looks, at first, as if\nsomething {108} were gained by this alteration; for, as I have just pointed\nout, the word \"fishes\" can be used in two senses, one of which has a\ndeceptive appearance of adjustability to the \"Mosaic\" account. Then the\ninconvenient reptiles are banished out of sight; and, finally, the question\nof the exact meaning of \"higher\" and \"ordinary\" in the case of mammals\nopens up the prospect of a hopeful logomachy. But what is the good of it\nall in the face of Leviticus on the one hand and of palaeontology on the\nother?\n\nAs, in my apprehension, there is not a shadow of justification for the\nsuggestion that when the pentateuchal writer says \"fowl\" he excludes bats\n(which, as we shall see directly, are expressly included under \"fowl\" in\nLeviticus), and as I have already shown that he demonstrably includes\nreptiles, as well as mammals, among the creeping things of the land, I may\nbe permitted to spare my readers further discussion of the \"fivefold\norder.\" On the whole, it is seen to be rather more inconsistent with\nGenesis than its fourfold predecessor.\n\nBut I have yet a fresh order to face. Mr. Gladstone (p. 11) understands\n\"the main statements of Genesis in successive order of time, but without\nany measurement of its divisions, to be as follows:--\n\n  1. A period of land, anterior to all life (v. 9, 10).\n  2. A period of vegetable life, anterior to animal life (v. 11, 12).\n  3. A period of animal life, in the order of fishes (v. 20).\n  4. Another stage of animal life, in the order of birds.\n  5. Another, in the order of beasts (v. 24, 25).\n  6. Last of all, man (v. 26, 27).\"\n\n{109}\n\nMr. Gladstone then tries to find the proof of the occurrence of a similar\nsuccession in sundry excellent works on geology.\n\nI am really grieved to be obliged to say that this third (or is it fourth?)\nmodification of the foundation of the \"plea for revelation\" originally set\nforth, satisfies me as little as any of its predecessors.\n\nFor, in the first place, I cannot accept the assertion that this order is\nto be found in Genesis. With respect to No. 5, for example, I hold, as I\nhave already said, that \"great sea monsters\" includes the Cetacea, in which\ncase mammals (which is what, I suppose, Mr. Gladstone means by \"beasts\")\ncome in under head No. 3, and not under No. 5. Again, \"fowl\" are said in\nGenesis to be created on the same day as fishes; therefore I cannot accept\nan order which makes birds succeed fishes. Once more, as it is quite\ncertain that the term \"fowl\" includes the bats,--for in Leviticus xi. 13-19\nwe read, \"And these shall ye have in abomination among the fowls ... the\nheron after its kind, and the hoopoe, and the bat,\"--it is obvious that\nbats are also said to have been created at stage No. 3. And as bats are\nmammals, and their existence obviously presupposes that of terrestrial\n\"beasts,\" it is quite clear that the latter could not have first appeared\nas No. 5. I need not repeat my reasons for doubting whether man came \"last\nof all.\"\n\nAs the latter half of Mr. Gladstone's sixfold order thus shows itself to be\nwholly unauthorised by, and inconsistent with, the plain language of the\nPentateuch, {110} I might decline to discuss the admissibility of its\nformer half.\n\nBut I will add one or two remarks on this point also. Does Mr. Gladstone\nmean to say that in any of the works he has cited, or indeed anywhere else,\nhe can find scientific warranty for the assertion that there was a period\nof land--by which I suppose he means dry land (for submerged land must\nneeds be as old as the separate existence of the sea)--\"anterior to all\nlife\"?\n\nIt may be so, or it may not be so; but where is the evidence which would\njustify any one in making a positive assertion on the subject? What\ncompetent palaeontologist will affirm, at this present moment, that he knows\nanything about the period at which life originated, or will assert more\nthan the extreme probability that such origin was a long way antecedent to\nany traces of life at present known? What physical geologist will affirm\nthat he knows when dry land began to exist, or will say more than that it\nwas probably very much earlier than any extant direct evidence of\nterrestrial conditions indicates?\n\nI think I know pretty well the answers which the authorities quoted by Mr.\nGladstone would give to these questions; but I leave it to them to give\nthem if they think fit.\n\nIf I ventured to speculate on the matter at all, I should say it is by no\nmeans certain that sea is older than dry land, inasmuch as a solid\nterrestrial surface may very well have existed before the earth was cool\nenough to allow of the existence of fluid water. And, {111} in this case,\ndry land may have existed before the sea. As to the first appearance of\nlife, the whole argument of analogy, whatever it may be worth in such a\ncase, is in favour of the absence of living beings until long after the hot\nwater seas had constituted themselves; and of the subsequent appearance of\naquatic before terrestrial forms of life. But whether these \"protoplasts\"\nwould, if we could examine them, be reckoned among the lowest microscopic\nalgae, or fungi; or among those doubtful organisms which lie in the\ndebatable land between animals and plants, is, in my judgment, a question\non which a prudent biologist will reserve his opinion.\n\n\n\nI think that I have now disposed of those parts of Mr. Gladstone's defence\nin which I seem to discover a design to rescue his solemn \"plea for\nrevelation.\" But a great deal of the \"Proem to Genesis\" remains which I\nwould gladly pass over in silence, were such a course consistent with the\nrespect due to so distinguished a champion of the \"reconcilers.\"\n\nI hope that my clients--the people of average opinions--have by this time\nsome confidence in me; for when I tell them that, after all, Mr. Gladstone\nis of opinion that the \"Mosaic record\" was meant to give moral, and not\nscientific, instruction to those for whom it was written, they may be\ndisposed to think that I must be misleading them. But let them listen\nfurther to what Mr. Gladstone says in a compendious but not exactly correct\nstatement respecting my opinions:-- {112}\n\n    He holds the writer responsible for scientific precision: I look for\n    nothing of the kind, but assign to him a statement general, which\n    admits exceptions; popular, which aims mainly at producing moral\n    impression; summary, which cannot but be open to more or less of\n    criticism of detail. He thinks it is a lecture. I think it is a sermon\n    (p. 5).\n\nI note, incidentally, that Mr. Gladstone appears to consider that the\n_differentia_ between a lecture and a sermon is, that the former, so far as\nit deals with matters of fact, may be taken seriously, as meaning exactly\nwhat it says, while a sermon may not. I have quite enough on my hands\nwithout taking up the cudgels for the clergy, who will probably find Mr.\nGladstone's definition unflattering.\n\nBut I am diverging from my proper business, which is to say that I have\ngiven no ground for the ascription of these opinions; and that, as a matter\nof fact, I do not hold them and never have held them. It is Mr. Gladstone,\nand not I, who will have it that the pentateuchal cosmogony is to be taken\nas science.\n\nMy belief, on the contrary, is, and long has been, that the pentateuchal\nstory of the creation is simply a myth. I suppose it to be an hypothesis\nrespecting the origin of the universe which some ancient thinker found\nhimself able to reconcile with his knowledge, or what he thought was\nknowledge, of the nature of things, and therefore assumed to be true. As\nsuch, I hold it to be not merely an interesting, but a venerable, monument\nof a stage in the mental progress of mankind; and I find it difficult to\nsuppose that any one who is acquainted with the cosmogonies of other {113}\nnations--and especially with those of the Egyptians and the Babylonians,\nwith whom the Israelites were in such frequent and intimate\ncommunication--should consider it to possess either more, or less,\nscientific importance than may be allotted to these.\n\nMr. Gladstone's definition of a sermon permits me to suspect that he may\nnot see much difference between that form of discourse and what I call a\nmyth; and I hope it may be something more than the slowness of\napprehension, to which I have confessed, which leads me to imagine that a\nstatement which is \"general\" but \"admits exceptions,\" which is \"popular\"\nand \"aims mainly at producing moral impression,\" \"summary\" and therefore\nopen to \"criticism of detail,\" amounts to a myth, or perhaps less than a\nmyth. Put algebraically, it comes to this, _x_ = _a_ + _b_ + _c_; always\nremembering that there is nothing to show the exact value of either _a_, or\n_b_, or c. It is true that _a_ is commonly supposed to equal 10, but there\nare exceptions, and these may reduce it to 8, or 3, or 0; _b_ also\npopularly means 10, but being chiefly used by the algebraist as a \"moral\"\nvalue, you cannot do much with it in the addition or subtraction of\nmathematical values; _c_ also is quite \"summary,\" and if you go into the\ndetails of which it is made up, many of them may be wrong, and their sum\ntotal equal to 0, or even to a minus quantity.\n\nMr. Gladstone appears to wish that I should (1) enter upon a sort of essay\ncompetition with the author of the pentateuchal cosmogony; (2) that I\nshould make a further statement about some {114} elementary facts in the\nhistory of Indian and Greek philosophy; and (3) that I should show cause\nfor my hesitation in accepting the assertion that Genesis is supported, at\nany rate to the extent of the first two verses, by the nebular hypothesis.\n\nA certain sense of humour prevents me from accepting the first invitation.\nI would as soon attempt to put Hamlet's soliloquy into a more scientific\nshape. But if I supposed the \"Mosaic writer\" to be inspired, as Mr.\nGladstone does, it would not be consistent with my notions of respect for\nthe Supreme Being to imagine Him unable to frame a form of words which\nshould accurately, or, at least, not inaccurately, express His own meaning.\nIt is sometimes said that, had the statements contained in the first\nchapter of Genesis been scientifically true, they would have been\nunintelligible to ignorant people; but how is the matter mended if, being\nscientifically untrue, they must needs be rejected by instructed people?\n\nWith respect to the second suggestion, it would be presumptuous in me to\npretend to instruct Mr. Gladstone in matters which lie as much within the\nprovince of Literature and History as in that of Science; but if any one\ndesirous of further knowledge will be so good as to turn to that most\nexcellent and by no means recondite source of information, the\n_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, he will find, under the letter E, the word\n\"Evolution,\" and a long article on that subject. Now, I do not recommend\nhim to read the first half of the article; but the second half, by my {115}\nfriend Mr. Sully, is really very good. He will there find it said that in\nsome of the philosophies of ancient India, the idea of evolution is clearly\nexpressed: \"Brahma is conceived as the eternal self-existent being, which,\non its material side, unfolds itself to the world by gradually condensing\nitself to material objects through the gradations of ether, fire, water,\nearth, and other elements.\" And again: \"In the later system of emanation of\nSankhya there is a more marked approach to a materialistic doctrine of\nevolution.\" What little knowledge I have of the matter--chiefly derived\nfrom that very instructive book, _Die Religion des Buddha_, by C. F.\nKoeppen, supplemented by Hardy's interesting works--leads me to think that\nMr. Sully might have spoken much more strongly as to the evolutionary\ncharacter of Indian philosophy, and especially of that of the Buddhists.\nBut the question is too large to be dealt with incidentally.\n\nAnd, with respect to early Greek philosophy,[16] the seeker after\nadditional enlightenment need go no further than the same excellent\nstorehouse of information:--\n\n    The early Ionian physicists, including Thales, Anaximander, and\n    Anaximenes, seek to explain the world as generated out of a primordial\n    matter which is at the same time the universal support of things. This\n    substance is endowed with a generative or transmutative force by virtue\n    of which it passes into a {116} succession of forms. They thus resemble\n    modern evolutionists, since they regard the world, with its infinite\n    variety of forms, as issuing from a simple mode of matter.\n\nFurther on, Mr. Sully remarks that \"Heraclitus deserves a prominent place\nin the history of the idea of evolution,\" and he states, with perfect\njustice, that Heraclitus has foreshadowed some of the special peculiarities\nof Mr. Darwin's views. It is indeed a very strange circumstance that the\nphilosophy of the great Ephesian more than adumbrates the two doctrines\nwhich have played leading parts, the one in the development of Christian\ndogma, the other in that of natural science. The former is the conception\nof the Word ([Greek: logos]) which took its Jewish shape in Alexandria, and\nits Christian form[17] in that Gospel which is usually referred to an\nEphesian source of some five centuries later date; and the latter is that\nof the struggle for existence. The saying that \"strife is father and king\nof all\" ([Greek: polemos panton men pater esti, panton de basileus]),\nascribed to Heraclitus, would be a not inappropriate motto for the \"Origin\nof Species.\"\n\nI have referred only to Mr. Sully's article, because his authority is quite\nsufficient for my purpose. But the consultation of any of the more\nelaborate histories of Greek philosophy, such as the great work of Zeller,\nfor example, will only bring out the same fact into still more striking\nprominence. I have professed no \"minute acquaintance\" with either Indian or\nGreek philosophy, but I have taken a great deal of pains to {117} secure\nthat such knowledge as I do possess shall be accurate and trustworthy.\n\nIn the third place, Mr. Gladstone appears to wish that I should discuss\nwith him the question whether the nebular hypothesis is, or is not,\nconfirmatory of the pentateuchal account of the origin of things. Mr.\nGladstone appears to be prepared to enter upon this campaign with a light\nheart. I confess I am not, and my reason for this backwardness will\ndoubtless surprise Mr. Gladstone. It is that, rather more than a quarter of\na century ago (namely, in February 1859), when it was my duty, as President\nof the Geological Society, to deliver the Anniversary Address,[18] I chose\na topic which involved a very careful study of the remarkable cosmogonical\nspeculation, originally promulgated by Immanuel Kant and, subsequently, by\nLaplace, which is now known as the nebular hypothesis. With the help of\nsuch little acquaintance with the principles of physics and astronomy as I\nhad gained, I endeavoured to obtain a clear understanding of this\nspeculation in all its bearings. I am not sure that I succeeded; but of\nthis I am certain, that the problems involved are very difficult, even for\nthose who possess the intellectual discipline requisite for dealing with\nthem. And it was this conviction that led me to express my desire to leave\nthe discussion of the question of the asserted harmony between Genesis and\nthe nebular hypothesis to experts in the appropriate branches of knowledge.\nAnd I think my course was a {118} wise one; but as Mr. Gladstone evidently\ndoes not understand how there can be any hesitation on my part, unless it\narises from a conviction that he is in the right, I may go so far as to set\nout my difficulties.\n\nThey are of two kinds--exegetical and scientific. It appears to me that it\nis vain to discuss a supposed coincidence between Genesis and science\nunless we have first settled, on the one hand, what Genesis says, and, on\nthe other hand, what science says.\n\nIn the first place, I cannot find any consensus among Biblical scholars as\nto the meaning of the words, \"In the beginning God created the heaven and\nthe earth.\" Some say that the Hebrew word _bara_, which is translated\n\"create,\" means \"made out of nothing.\" I venture to object to that\nrendering, not on the ground of scholarship, but of common sense.\nOmnipotence itself can surely no more make something \"out of\" nothing than\nit can make a triangular circle. What is intended by \"made out of nothing\"\nappears to be \"caused to come into existence,\" with the implication that\nnothing of the same kind previously existed. It is further usually assumed\nthat \"the heaven and the earth\" means the material substance of the\nuniverse. Hence the \"Mosaic writer\" is taken to imply that where nothing of\na material nature previously existed, this substance appeared. That is\nperfectly conceivable, and therefore no one can deny that it may have\nhappened. But there are other very authoritative {119} critics who say that\nthe ancient Israelite[19] who wrote the passage was not likely to have been\ncapable of such abstract thinking; and that, as a matter of philology,\n_bara_ is commonly used to signify the \"fashioning,\" or \"forming,\" of that\nwhich already exists. Now it appears to me that the scientific investigator\nis wholly incompetent to say anything at all about the first origin of the\nmaterial universe. The whole power of his organon vanishes when he has to\nstep beyond the chain of natural causes and effects. No form of the nebular\nhypothesis, that I know of, is necessarily connected with any view of the\norigination of the nebular substance. Kant's form of it expressly supposes\nthat the nebular material from which one stellar system starts may be\nnothing but the disintegrated substance of a stellar and planetary system\nwhich has just come to an end. Therefore, so far as I can see, one who\nbelieves that matter has existed from all eternity has just as much right\nto hold the nebular hypothesis as one who believes that matter came into\nexistence at a specified epoch. In other words, the nebular hypothesis and\nthe creation hypothesis, up to this point, neither confirm nor oppose one\nanother.\n\nNext, we read in the revisers' version, in which I suppose the ultimate\nresults of critical scholarship to be embodied: \"And the earth was waste\n['without form,' in the Authorised Version] and void.\" Most {120} people\nseem to think that this phraseology intends to imply that the matter out of\nwhich the world was to be formed was a veritable \"chaos,\" devoid of law and\norder. If this interpretation is correct, the nebular hypothesis can have\nnothing to say to it. The scientific thinker cannot admit the absence of\nlaw and order, anywhere or anywhen, in nature. Sometimes law and order are\npatent and visible to our limited vision; sometimes they are hidden. But\nevery particle of the matter of the most fantastic-looking nebula in the\nheavens is a realm of law and order in itself; and, that it is so, is the\nessential condition of the possibility of solar and planetary evolution\nfrom the apparent chaos.[20]\n\n\"Waste\" is too vague a term to be worth consideration. \"Without form,\"\nintelligible enough as a metaphor, if taken literally, is absurd; for a\nmaterial thing existing in space must have a superficies, and if it has a\nsuperficies it has a form. The wildest streaks of marestail clouds in the\nsky, or the most irregular heavenly nebulae, have surely just as much form\nas a geometrical tetrahedron; and as for \"void,\" how can that be void which\nis full of matter? As poetry, these lines are vivid and admirable; as a\nscientific statement, which they must be taken to be if any one is\njustified in comparing them with another scientific statement, they fail to\nconvey any intelligible conception to my mind.\n\n{121}\n\nThe account proceeds: \"And darkness was upon the face of the deep.\" So be\nit; but where, then, is the likeness to the celestial nebulae, of the\nexistence of which we should know nothing unless they shone with a light of\ntheir own? \"And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.\" I\nhave met with no form of the nebular hypothesis which involves anything\nanalogous to this process.\n\nI have said enough to explain some of the difficulties which arise in my\nmind, when I try to ascertain whether there is any foundation for the\ncontention that the statements contained in the first two verses of Genesis\nare supported by the nebular hypothesis. The result does not appear to me\nto be exactly favourable to that contention. The nebular hypothesis assumes\nthe existence of matter, having definite properties, as its foundation.\nWhether such matter was created a few thousand years ago, or whether it has\nexisted through an eternal series of metamorphoses of which our present\nuniverse is only the last stage, are alternatives, neither of which is\nscientifically untenable, and neither scientifically demonstrable. But\nscience knows nothing of any stage in which the universe could be said, in\nother than a metaphorical and popular sense, to be formless or empty; or in\nany respect less the seat of law and order than it is now. One might as\nwell talk of a fresh-laid hen's egg being \"without form and void,\" because\nthe chick therein is potential and not actual, as apply such terms to the\nnebulous mass which contains a potential solar system. {122}\n\nUntil some further enlightenment comes to me, then, I confess myself wholly\nunable to understand the way in which the nebular hypothesis is to be\nconverted into an ally of the \"Mosaic writer.\"[21]\n\nBut Mr. Gladstone informs us that Professor Dana and Professor Guyot are\nprepared to prove that the \"first or cosmogonical portion of the Proem not\nonly accords with, but teaches, the nebular hypothesis.\" There is no one to\nwhose authority on geological questions I am more readily disposed to bow\nthan that of my eminent friend Professor Dana. But I am familiar with what\nhe has previously said on this topic in his well-known and standard work,\ninto which, strangely enough, it does not seem to have occurred to Mr.\nGladstone to look before he set out upon his present undertaking; and\nunless Professor Dana's latest contribution (which I have not yet met with)\ntakes up altogether new ground, I am afraid I shall {123} not be able to\nextricate myself, by its help, from my present difficulties.\n\nIt is a very long time since I began to think about the relations between\nmodern scientifically ascertained truths and the cosmogonical speculations\nof the writer of Genesis; and, as I think that Mr. Gladstone might have\nbeen able to put his case with a good deal more force if he had thought it\nworth while to consult the last chapter of Professor Dana's admirable\n_Manual of Geology_, so I think he might have been made aware that he was\nundertaking an enterprise of which he had not counted the cost, if he had\nchanced upon a discussion of the subject which I published in 1877.[22]\n\nFinally, I should like to draw the attention of those who take interest in\nthese topics to the weighty words of one of the most learned and moderate\nof Biblical critics:--\n\n    A propos de cette premiere page de la Bible, on a coutume de nos jours\n    de disserter, a perte de vue, sur l'accord du recit mosaique avec les\n    sciences naturelles; et comme celles-ci, tout eloignees qu'elles sont\n    encore de la perfection absolue, ont rendu populaires et en quelque\n    sorte irrefragables un certain nombre de faits generaux ou de theses\n    fondamentales de la cosmologie et de la geologie, c'est le texte sacre\n    qu'on s'evertue a torturer pour le faire concorder avec ces\n    donnees.[23]\n\nIn my paper on the \"Interpreters of Nature and the Interpreters of\nGenesis,\" while freely availing myself of the rights of a scientific\ncritic, I endeavoured to keep the expression of my views well within those\n{124} bounds of courtesy which are set by self-respect and consideration\nfor others. I am therefore glad to be favoured with Mr. Gladstone's\nacknowledgment of the success of my efforts. I only wish that I could\naccept all the products of Mr. Gladstone's gracious appreciation, but there\nis one about which, as a matter of honesty, I hesitate. In fact, if I had\nexpressed my meaning better than I seem to have done, I doubt if this\nparticular proffer of Mr. Gladstone's thanks would have been made.\n\nTo my mind, whatever doctrine professes to be the result of the application\nof the accepted rules of inductive and deductive logic to its\nsubject-matter; and accepts, within the limits which it sets to itself, the\nsupremacy of reason, is Science. Whether the subject-matter consists of\nrealities or unrealities, truths or falsehoods, is quite another question.\nI conceive that ordinary geometry is science, by reason of its method, and\nI also believe that its axioms, definitions, and conclusions are all true.\nHowever, there is a geometry of four dimensions, which I also believe to be\nscience, because its method professes to be strictly scientific. It is true\nthat I cannot conceive four dimensions in space, and therefore, for me, the\nwhole affair is unreal. But I have known men of great intellectual powers\nwho seemed to have no difficulty either in conceiving them, or, at any\nrate, in imagining how they could conceive them; and, therefore,\nfour-dimensioned geometry comes under my notion of science. So I think\nastrology is a science, in so far as it professes to reason logically from\nprinciples {125} established by just inductive methods. To prevent\nmisunderstanding, perhaps I had better add that I do not believe one whit\nin astrology; but no more do I believe in Ptolemaic astronomy, or in the\ncatastrophic geology of my youth, although these, in their day,\nclaimed--and, to my mind, rightly claimed--the name of science. If nothing\nis to be called science but that which is exactly true from beginning to\nend, I am afraid there is very little science in the world outside\nmathematics. Among the physical sciences, I do not know that any could\nclaim more than that it is true within certain limits, so narrow that, for\nthe present at any rate, they may be neglected. If such is the case, I do\nnot see where the line is to be drawn between exactly true, partially true,\nand mainly untrue forms of science. And what I have said about the current\ntheology at the end of my paper [p. 95] leaves, I think, no doubt as to the\ncategory in which I rank it. For all that, I think it would be not only\nunjust, but almost impertinent, to refuse the name of science to the\n_Summa_ of St. Thomas or to the _Institutes_ of Calvin.\n\n\n\nIn conclusion, I confess that my supposed \"unjaded appetite\" for the sort\nof controversy in which it needed not Mr. Gladstone's express declaration\nto tell us he is far better practised than I am (though probably, without\nanother express declaration, no one would have suspected that his\ncontroversial fires are burning low) is already satiated.\n\nIn \"Elysium\" we conduct scientific discussions in {126} a different medium,\nand we are liable to threatenings of asphyxia in that \"atmosphere of\ncontention\" in which Mr. Gladstone has been able to live, alert and\nvigorous beyond the common race of men, as if it were purest mountain air.\nI trust that he may long continue to seek truth, under the difficult\nconditions he has chosen for the search, with unabated energy--I had almost\nsaid fire--\n\n  May age not wither him, nor custom stale\n  His infinite variety.\n\nBut Elysium suits my less robust constitution better, and I beg leave to\nretire thither, not sorry for my experience of the other region--no one\nshould regret experience--but determined not to repeat it, at any rate in\nreference to the \"plea for revelation.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    NOTE ON THE PROPER SENSE OF THE \"MOSAIC\" NARRATIVE OF THE CREATION.\n\n    It has been objected to my argument from Leviticus (p. 103), that the\n    Hebrew words translated by \"creeping things\" in Genesis i. 24 and\n    Leviticus xi. 29, are different; namely, \"reh-mes\" in the former,\n    \"sheh-retz\" in the latter. The obvious reply to this objection is that\n    the question is not one of words but of the meaning of words. To borrow\n    an illustration from our own language, if \"crawling things\" had been\n    used by the translators in Genesis and \"creeping things\" in Leviticus,\n    it would not have been necessarily implied that they intended to denote\n    different groups of animals. \"Sheh-retz\" is employed in a wider sense\n    than \"reh-mes.\" There are \"sheh-retz\" of the waters, of the earth, of\n    the air, and of the land. Leviticus speaks of land reptiles, among\n    other animals, as \"sheh-retz\"; Genesis speaks of all creeping land\n    animals, among which land reptiles are necessarily included, as\n    \"reh-mes.\" Our translators, therefore, {127} have given the true sense\n    when they render both \"sheh-retz\" and \"reh-mes\" by \"creeping things.\"\n\n    Having taken a good deal of trouble to show what Genesis i.-ii. 4 does\n    not mean, in the preceding pages, perhaps it may be well that I should\n    briefly give my opinion as to what it does mean. I conceive that the\n    unknown author of this part of the Hexateuchal compilation believed,\n    and meant his readers to believe, that his words, as they understood\n    them--that is to say, in their ordinary natural sense--conveyed the\n    \"actual historical truth.\" When he says that such and such things\n    happened, I believe him to mean that they actually occurred and not\n    that he imagined or dreamed them; when he says \"day,\" I believe he uses\n    the word in the popular sense; when he says \"made\" or \"created,\" I\n    believe he means that they came into being by a process analogous to\n    that which the people whom he addressed called \"making\" or \"creating\";\n    and I think that, unless we forget our present knowledge of nature,\n    and, putting ourselves back into the position of a Phoenician or a\n    Chaldaean philosopher, start from his conception of the world, we shall\n    fail to grasp the meaning of the Hebrew writer. We must conceive the\n    earth to be an immovable, more or less flattened, body, with the vault\n    of heaven above, the watery abyss below and around. We must imagine\n    sun, moon, and stars to be \"set\" in a \"firmament\" with, or in, which\n    they move; and above which is yet another watery mass. We must consider\n    \"light\" and \"darkness\" to be things, the alternation of which\n    constitutes day and night, independently of the existence of sun, moon,\n    and stars. We must further suppose that, as in the case of the story of\n    the deluge, the Hebrew writer was acquainted with a Gentile (probably\n    Chaldaean or Accadian) account of the origin of things, in which he\n    substantially believed, but which he stripped of all its idolatrous\n    associations by substituting \"Elohim\" for Ea, Anu, Bel, and the like.\n\n    From this point of view the first verse strikes the keynote of the\n    whole. In the beginning \"Elohim[24] created the heaven and the earth.\"\n    Heaven and earth were not primitive existences from which the gods\n    proceeded, as the Gentiles taught; on the contrary, the \"Powers\"\n    preceded and created heaven and earth. {128} Whether by \"creation\" is\n    meant \"causing to be where nothing was before\" or \"shaping of something\n    which pre-existed,\" seems to me to be an insoluble question.\n\n    As I have pointed out, the second verse has an interesting parallel in\n    Jeremiah iv. 23: \"I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void;\n    and the heavens, and they had no light.\" I conceive that there is no\n    more allusion to chaos in the one than in the other. The earth-disk lay\n    in its watery envelope, like the yolk of an egg in the _glaire_, and\n    the spirit, or breath, of Elohim stirred the mass. Light was created as\n    a thing by itself; and its antithesis \"darkness\" as another thing. It\n    was supposed to be the nature of these two to alternate, and a pair of\n    alternations constituted a \"day\" in the sense of an unit of time.\n\n    The next step was, necessarily, the formation of that \"firmament,\" or\n    dome over the earth-disk, which was supposed to support the celestial\n    waters; and in which sun, moon, and stars were conceived to be set, as\n    in a sort of orrery. The earth was still surrounded and covered by the\n    lower waters, but the upper were separated from it by the \"firmament,\"\n    beneath which what we call the air lay. A second alternation of\n    darkness and light marks the lapse of time.\n\n    After this, the waters which covered the earth-disk, under the\n    firmament, were drawn away into certain regions, which became seas,\n    while the part laid bare became dry land. In accordance with the\n    notion, universally accepted in antiquity, that moist earth possesses\n    the potentiality of giving rise to living beings, the land, at the\n    command of Elohim, \"put forth\" all sorts of plants. They are made to\n    appear thus early, not, I apprehend, from any notion that plants are\n    lower in the scale of being than animals (which would seem to be\n    inconsistent with the prevalence of tree worship among ancient people),\n    but rather because animals obviously depend on plants; and because,\n    without crops and harvests, there seemed to be no particular need of\n    heavenly signs for the seasons.\n\n    These were provided by the fourth day's work. Light existed already;\n    but now vehicles for the distribution of light, in a special manner and\n    with varying degrees of intensity, were provided. I conceive that the\n    previous alternations of light and darkness were supposed to go on; but\n    that the \"light\" was {129} strengthened during the daytime by the sun,\n    which, as a source of heat as well as of light, glided up the firmament\n    from the east, and slid down in the west, each day. Very probably each\n    day's sun was supposed to be a new one. And, as the light of the day\n    was strengthened by the sun, so the darkness of the night was weakened\n    by the moon, which regularly waxed and waned every month. The stars\n    are, as it were, thrown in. And nothing can more sharply mark the\n    doctrinal purpose of the author, than the manner in which he deals with\n    the heavenly bodies, which the Gentiles identified so closely with\n    their gods, as if they were mere accessories to the almanac.\n\n    Animals come next in order of creation, and the general notion of the\n    writer seems to be that they were produced by the medium in which they\n    live; that is to say, the aquatic animals by the waters and the\n    terrestrial animals by the land. But there was a difficulty about\n    flying things, such as bats, birds, and insects. The cosmogonist seems\n    to have had no conception of \"air\" as an elemental body. His \"elements\"\n    are earth and water, and he ignores air as much as he does fire. Birds\n    \"fly above the earth in the open firmament\" or \"on the face of the\n    expanse\" of heaven. They are not said to fly through the air. The\n    choice of a generative medium for flying things, therefore, seemed to\n    lie between water and earth; and, if we take into account the\n    conspicuousness of the great flocks of water-birds and the swarms of\n    winged insects, which appear to arise from water, I think the\n    preference of water becomes intelligible. However, I do not put this\n    forward as more than a probable hypothesis. As to the creation of\n    aquatic animals on the fifth, that of land animals on the sixth day,\n    and that of man last of all, I presume the order was determined by the\n    fact that man could hardly receive dominion over the living world\n    before it existed; and that the \"cattle\" were not wanted until he was\n    about to make his appearance. The other terrestrial animals would\n    naturally be associated with the cattle.\n\n    The absurdity of imagining that any conception, analogous to that of a\n    zoological classification, was in the mind of the writer will be\n    apparent, when we consider that the fifth day's work must include the\n    zoologist's _Cetacea_, _Sirenia_, and seals,[25] all of which are {130}\n    _Mammalia_; all birds, turtles, sea-snakes and, presumably, the fresh\n    water _Reptilia_ and _Amphibia_; with the great majority of\n    _Invertebrata_.\n\n    The creation of man is announced as a separate act, resulting from a\n    particular resolution of Elohim to \"make man in our image, after our\n    likeness.\" To learn what this remarkable phrase means we must turn to\n    the fifth chapter of Genesis, the work of the same writer. \"In the day\n    that Elohim created man, in the likeness of Elohim made he him; male\n    and female created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam\n    in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty\n    years and begat _a son_ in his own likeness, after his image; and\n    called his name Seth.\" I find it impossible to read this passage\n    without being convinced that, when the writer says Adam was made in the\n    likeness of Elohim, he means the same sort of likeness as when he says\n    that Seth was begotten in the likeness of Adam. Whence it follows that\n    his conception of Elohim was completely anthropomorphic.\n\n\n\n    In all this narrative I can discover nothing which differentiates it,\n    in principle, from other ancient cosmogonies, except the rejection of\n    all gods, save the vague, yet anthropomorphic, Elohim, and the\n    assigning to them anteriority and superiority to the world. It is as\n    utterly irreconcilable with the assured truths of modern science, as it\n    is with the account of the origin of man, plants, and animals given by\n    the writer of the second chief constituent of the Hexateuch in the\n    second chapter of Genesis. This extraordinary story starts with the\n    assumption of the existence of a rainless earth, devoid of plants and\n    herbs of the field. The creation of living beings begins with that of a\n    solitary man; the next thing that happens is the laying out of the\n    Garden of Eden, and the causing the growth from its soil of every tree\n    \"that is pleasant to the sight and good for food\"; the third act is the\n    formation out of the ground of \"every beast of the field, and every\n    fowl of the air\"; the fourth and last, the manufacture of the first\n    woman from a rib, extracted from Adam, while in a state of anaesthesia.\n\n    Yet there are people who not only profess to take this monstrous legend\n    seriously; but who declare it to be reconcilable with the Elohistic\n    account of the creation!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{131}\n\nIV\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF THEOLOGY: AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDY\n\nI conceive that the origin, the growth, the decline, and the fall of those\nspeculations respecting the existence, the powers, and the dispositions of\nbeings analogous to men, but more or less devoid of corporeal qualities,\nwhich may be broadly included under the head of theology, are phenomena the\nstudy of which legitimately falls within the province of the\nanthropologist. And it is purely as a question of anthropology (a\ndepartment of biology to which I have at various times given a good deal of\nattention) that I propose to treat of the evolution of theology in the\nfollowing pages.\n\nWith theology as a code of dogmas which are to be believed, or at any rate\nrepeated, under penalty of present or future punishment, or as a storehouse\nof anaesthetics for those who find the pains of life too hard to bear, I\nhave nothing to do; and, so far as it may be possible, I shall avoid the\nexpression of any opinion as to the objective truth or falsehood of the\nsystems of theological speculation of which I may {132} find occasion to\nspeak. From my present point of view, theology is regarded as a natural\nproduct of the operations of the human mind, under the conditions of its\nexistence, just as any other branch of science, or the arts of\narchitecture, or music, or painting are such products. Like them, theology\nhas a history. Like them also, it is to be met with in certain simple and\nrudimentary forms; and these can be connected by a multitude of gradations,\nwhich exist or have existed, among people of various ages and races, with\nthe most highly developed theologies of past and present times. It is not\nmy object to interfere, even in the slightest degree, with beliefs which\nanybody holds sacred; or to alter the conviction of any one who is of\nopinion that, in dealing with theology, we ought to be guided by\nconsiderations different from those which would be thought appropriate if\nthe problem lay in the province of chemistry or of mineralogy. And if\npeople of these ways of thinking choose to read beyond the present\nparagraph, the responsibility for meeting with anything they may dislike\nrests with them and not with me.\n\n\n\nWe are all likely to be more familiar with the theological history of the\nIsraelites than with that of any other nation. We may therefore fitly make\nit the first object of our studies; and it will be convenient to commence\nwith that period which lies between the invasion of Canaan and the early\ndays of the monarchy, and answers to the eleventh and twelfth {133}\ncenturies B.C. or thereabouts. The evidence on which any conclusion as to\nthe nature of Israelitic theology in those days must be based is wholly\ncontained in the Hebrew Scriptures--an agglomeration of documents which\ncertainly belong to very different ages, but of the exact dates and\nauthorship of any one of which (except perhaps one or two of the\nprophetical writings) there is no evidence, either internal or external, so\nfar as I can discover, of such a nature as to justify more than a\nconfession of ignorance, or, at most, an approximate conclusion. In this\nvenerable record of ancient life, miscalled a book, when it is really a\nlibrary comparable to a selection of works from English literature between\nthe times of Beda and those of Milton, we have the stratified deposits\n(often confused and even with their natural order inverted) left by the\nstream of the intellectual and moral life of Israel during many centuries.\nAnd, embedded in these strata, there are numerous remains of forms of\nthought which once lived, and which, though often unfortunately mere\nfragments, are of priceless value to the anthropologist. Our task is to\nrescue these from their relatively unimportant surroundings, and by careful\ncomparison with existing forms of theology to make the dead world which\nthey record live again. In other words, our problem is palaeontological, and\nthe method pursued must be the same as that employed in dealing with other\nfossil remains.\n\nAmong the richest of the fossiliferous strata to which I have alluded are\nthe books of Judges and {134} Samuel.[26] It has often been observed that\nthese writings stand out, in marked relief from those which precede and\nfollow them, in virtue of a certain archaic freshness and of a greater\nfreedom from traces of late interpolation and editorial trimming. Jephthah,\nGideon, and Samson are men of old heroic stamp, who would look as much in\nplace in a Norse Saga as where they are; and if the varnish-brush of later\nrespectability has passed over these memoirs of the mighty men of a wild\nage, here and there, it has not succeeded in effacing, or even in seriously\nobscuring, the essential characteristics of the theology traditionally\nascribed to their epoch.\n\nThere is nothing that I have met with in the results of Biblical criticism\ninconsistent with the conviction that these books give us a fairly\ntrustworthy account of Israelitic life and thought in the times which they\ncover; and, as such, apart from the great literary merit of many of their\nepisodes, they possess the interest of being, perhaps, the oldest genuine\nhistory, as apart from mere chronicles on the one hand and mere legends on\nthe other, at present accessible to us.\n\nBut it is often said with exultation by writers of {135} one party, and\noften admitted, more or less unwillingly, by their opponents, that these\nbooks are untrustworthy, by reason of being full of obviously unhistoric\ntales. And, as a notable example, the narrative of Saul's visit to the\nso-called \"witch of Endor\" is often cited. As I have already intimated, I\nhave nothing to do with theological partisanship, either heterodox or\northodox, nor, for my present purpose, does it matter very much whether the\nstory is historically true, or whether it merely shows what the writer\nbelieved; but, looking at the matter solely from the point of view of an\nanthropologist, I beg leave to express the opinion that the account of\nSaul's necromantic expedition is quite consistent with probability. That is\nto say, I see no reason whatever to doubt, firstly, that Saul made such a\nvisit; and, secondly, that he and all who were present, including the wise\nwoman of Endor herself, would have given, with entire sincerity, very much\nthe same account of the business as that which we now read in the\ntwenty-eighth chapter of the first book of Samuel; and I am further of\nopinion that this story is one of the most important of those fossils, to\nwhich I have referred, in the material which it offers for the\nreconstruction of the theology of the time. Let us therefore study it\nattentively--not merely as a narrative which, in the dramatic force of its\ngruesome simplicity, is not surpassed, if it is equalled, by the witch\nscenes in Macbeth--but as a piece of evidence bearing on an important\nanthropological problem.\n\nWe are told (1 Sam. xxviii.) that Saul, encamped {136} at Gilboa, became\nalarmed by the strength of the Philistine army gathered at Shunem. He\ntherefore \"inquired of Jahveh,\" but \"Jahveh answered him not, neither by\ndreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.\"[27] Thus deserted by Jahveh, Saul,\nin his extremity, bethought him of \"those that had familiar spirits, and\nthe wizards,\" whom he is said, at some previous time, to have \"put out of\nthe land\"; but who seem, nevertheless, to have been very imperfectly\nbanished, since Saul's servants, in answer to his command to seek him a\nwoman \"that hath a familiar spirit,\" reply without a sign of hesitation or\nof fear, \"Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor\";\njust as, in some parts of England, a countryman might tell any one who did\nnot look like a magistrate or a policeman, where a \"wise woman\" was to be\nmet with. Saul goes to this woman, who, after being assured of immunity,\nasks, \"Whom shall I bring up to thee?\" whereupon Saul says, \"Bring me up\nSamuel.\" The woman immediately sees an apparition. But to Saul nothing is\nvisible, for he asks, \"What seest thou?\" And the woman replies, \"I see\nElohim coming up out of the earth.\" Still the spectre remains invisible to\nSaul, for he asks, \"What form is he of?\" And she replies, \"An old man\ncometh up, and he is covered with a robe.\" So far, therefore, the wise\nwoman unquestionably plays the part of a \"medium,\" and Saul is dependent\nupon her version of what happens.\n\n{137}\n\nThe account continues:--\n\n    And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to\n    the ground and did obeisance. And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou\n    disquieted me to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed:\n    for the Philistines make war against me, and Elohim is departed from me\n    and answereth me no more, neither by prophets nor by dreams; therefore\n    I have called thee that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.\n    And Samuel said, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing that Jahveh\n    is departed from thee and is become thine adversary? And Jahveh hath\n    wrought for himself, as he spake by me, and Jahveh hath rent the\n    kingdom out of thine hand and given it to thy neighbour, even to David.\n    Because thou obeyedst not the voice of Jahveh and didst not execute his\n    fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath Jahveh done this thing unto\n    thee this day. Moreover, Jahveh will deliver Israel also with thee into\n    the hand of the Philistines; and to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be\n    with me: Jahveh shall deliver the host of Israel also into the hand of\n    the Philistines. Then Saul fell straightway his full length upon the\n    earth and was sore afraid because of the words of Samuel ... (v.\n    14-20).\n\nThe statement that Saul \"perceived\" that it was Samuel is not to be taken\nto imply that, even now, Saul actually saw the shade of the prophet, but\nonly that the woman's allusion to the prophetic mantle and to the aged\nappearance of the spectre convinced him that it was Samuel. Reuss[28] in\nfact translates the passage \"Alors Saul reconnut que c'etait Samuel.\" {138}\nNor does the dialogue between Saul and Samuel necessarily, or probably,\nsignify that Samuel spoke otherwise than by the voice of the wise woman.\nThe Septuagint does not hesitate to call her [Greek: engastrimuthos], that\nis to say, a ventriloquist, implying that it was she who spoke--and this\nview of the matter is in harmony with the fact that the exact sense of the\nHebrew words which are translated as \"a woman that hath a familiar spirit\"\nis \"a woman mistress of _Ob_.\" _Ob_ means primitively a leather bottle,\nsuch as a wine skin, and is applied alike to the necromancer and to the\nspirit evoked. Its use, in these senses, appears to have been suggested by\nthe likeness of the hollow sound emitted by a half-empty skin when struck,\nto the sepulchral tones in which the oracles of the evoked spirits were\nuttered by the medium. It is most probable that, in accordance with the\ngeneral theory of spiritual influences which obtained among the old\nIsraelites, the spirit of Samuel was conceived to pass into the body of the\nwise woman, and to use her vocal organs to speak in his own name--for I\ncannot discover that they drew any clear distinction between possession and\ninspiration.[29]\n\nIf the story of Saul's consultation of the occult powers is to be regarded\nas an authentic narrative, or, at any rate, as a statement which is\nperfectly veracious so far as the intention of the narrator goes--and, as I\nhave said, I see no reason for refusing it this character--it will be\nfound, on further consideration, {139} to throw a flood of light, both\ndirectly and indirectly, on the theology of Saul's countrymen--that is to\nsay, upon their beliefs respecting the nature and ways of spiritual beings.\n\nEven without the confirmation of other abundant evidences to the same\neffect, it leaves no doubt as to the existence, among them, of the\nfundamental doctrine that man consists of a body and of a spirit, which\nlast, after the death of the body, continues to exist as a ghost. At the\ntime of Saul's visit to Endor, Samuel was dead and buried; but that his\nspirit would be believed to continue to exist in Sheol may be concluded\nfrom the well-known passage in the song attributed to Hannah, his mother:--\n\n  Jahveh killeth and maketh alive,\n  He bringeth down to Sheol and bringeth up\n\n  (1 Sam. ii. 6).\n\nAnd it is obvious that this Sheol was thought to be a place underground in\nwhich Samuel's spirit had been disturbed by the necromancer's summons, and\nin which, after his return thither, he would be joined by the spirits of\nSaul and his sons when they had met with their bodily death on the hill of\nGilboa. It is further to be observed that the spirit, or ghost, of the dead\nman presents itself as the image of the man himself--it is the man not\nmerely in his ordinary corporeal presentment (even down to the prophet's\nmantle) but in his moral and intellectual characteristics. Samuel, who had\nbegun as Saul's friend and ended as his bitter enemy, gives it to be\nunderstood that he is annoyed at Saul's presumption in {140} disturbing\nhim; and that, in Sheol, he is as much the devoted servant of Jahveh and as\nmuch empowered to speak in Jahveh's name as he was during his sojourn in\nthe upper air.\n\nIt appears now to be universally admitted that, before the exile, the\nIsraelites had no belief in rewards and punishments after death, nor in\nanything similar to the Christian heaven and hell; but our story proves\nthat it would be an error to suppose that they did not believe in the\ncontinuance of individual existence after death by a ghostly simulacrum of\nlife. Nay, I think it would be very hard to produce conclusive evidence\nthat they disbelieved in immortality; for I am not aware that there is\nanything to show that they thought the existence of the souls of the dead\nin Sheol ever came to an end. But they do not seem to have conceived that\nthe condition of the souls in Sheol was in any way affected by their\nconduct in life. If there was immortality, there was no state of\nretribution in their theology. Samuel expects Saul and his sons to come to\nhim in Sheol.\n\nThe next circumstance to be remarked is that the name of _Elohim_ is\napplied to the spirit which the woman sees \"coming up out of the earth,\"\nthat is to say, from Sheol. The Authorised Version translates this in its\nliteral sense \"gods.\" The Revised Version gives \"god\" with \"gods\" in the\nmargin. Reuss renders the word by \"spectre,\" remarking in a note that it is\nnot quite exact; but that the word Elohim expresses \"something divine, that\nis to say, superhuman, commanding respect and terror\" (_Histoire {141} des\nIsraelites_, p. 321). Tuch, in his commentary on Genesis, and Thenius, in\nhis commentary on Samuel, express substantially the same opinion. Dr.\nAlexander (in Kitto's _Cyclopaedia_ s. v. \"God\") has the following\ninstructive remarks:--\n\n    [_Elohim_ is] sometimes used vaguely to describe unseen powers or\n    superhuman beings that are not properly thought of as divine. Thus the\n    witch of Endor saw \"Elohim ascending out of the earth\" (1 Sam. xxviii.\n    13), meaning thereby some beings of an unearthly, superhuman character.\n    So also in Zechariah xii. 8, it is said \"the house of David shall be as\n    Elohim, as the angel of the Lord,\" where, as the transition from Elohim\n    to the angel of the Lord is a minori ad majus, we must regard the\n    former as a vague designation of supernatural powers.\n\nDr. Alexander speaks here of \"beings\"; but there is no reason to suppose\nthat the wise woman of Endor referred to anything but a solitary spectre;\nand it is quite clear that Saul understood her in this sense, for he asks,\n\"What form is HE of?\"\n\nThis fact, that the name of Elohim is applied to a ghost, or disembodied\nsoul, conceived as the image of the body in which it once dwelt, is of no\nlittle importance. For it is well known that the same term was employed to\ndenote the gods of the heathen, who were thought to have definite\nquasi-corporeal forms and to be as much real entities as any other\nElohim.[30] The difference which was supposed to exist {142} between the\ndifferent Elohim was one of degree, not one of kind. Elohim was, in logical\nterminology, the genus of which ghosts, Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, and Jahveh\nwere species. The Israelite believed Jahveh to be immeasurably superior to\nall other kinds of Elohim. The inscription on the Moabite stone shows that\nKing Mesa held Chemosh to be, as unquestionably, the superior of Jahveh.\nBut if Jahveh was thus supposed to differ only in degree from the\nundoubtedly zoomorphic or anthropomorphic \"gods of the nations,\" why is it\nto be assumed that he also was not thought of as having a human shape? It\nis possible for those who forget that the time of the great prophetic\nwriters is at least as remote from that of Saul as our day is from that of\nQueen Elizabeth, to insist upon interpreting the gross notions current in\nthe earlier age and among the mass of the people by the refined conceptions\npromulgated by a few select spirits centuries later. But if we take the\nlanguage constantly used concerning the Deity in the books of Genesis,\nExodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, or Kings, in its natural sense (and I am\naware of no valid reason which can be given for taking it in any other\nsense), there cannot, to my mind, be a doubt that Jahveh was conceived by\nthose from whom the substance of these books is mainly derived, to possess\nthe appearance and the intellectual and moral attributes of a man; and,\nindeed, of a man of just that type with which the Israelites were familiar\nin their stronger and intellectually abler rulers and leaders. In a\nwell-known passage of Genesis (i. 27) Elohim is said to {143} have \"created\nman in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him.\" It is \"man\"\nwho is here said to be the image of Elohim--not man's soul alone, still\nless his \"reason,\" but the whole man. It is obvious that for those who\ncalled a manlike ghost Elohim, there could be no difficulty in conceiving\nany other Elohim under the same aspect. And if there could be any doubt on\nthis subject, surely it cannot stand in the face of what we find in the\nfifth chapter, where, immediately after a repetition of the statement that\n\"Elohim created man, in the likeness of Elohim made he him,\" it is said\nthat Adam begat Seth \"in his own likeness, after his image.\" Does this mean\nthat Seth resembled Adam only in a spiritual and figurative sense? And if\nthat interpretation of the third verse of the fifth chapter of Genesis is\nabsurd, why does it become reasonable in the first verse of the same\nchapter?\n\nBut let us go further. Is not the Jahveh who \"walks in the garden in the\ncool of the day\"; from whom one may hope to \"hide oneself among the trees\";\nof whom it is expressly said that \"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and\nseventy of the elders of Israel,\" saw the Elohim of Israel (Exod. xxiv.\n9-11); and that, although the seeing Jahveh was understood to be a high\ncrime and misdemeanour, worthy of death, under ordinary circumstances, yet,\nfor this once, he \"laid not his hand on the nobles of Israel\"; \"that they\nbeheld Elohim and did eat and drink\"; and that afterwards Moses saw his\nback (Exod. xxxiii. 23)--is not this Deity conceived as manlike in form?\n{144} Again, is not the Jahveh who eats with Abraham under the oaks at\nMamre, who is pleased with the \"sweet savour\" of Noah's sacrifice, to whom\nsacrifices are said to be \"food\"[31]--is not this Deity depicted as\npossessed of human appetites? If this were not the current Israelitish idea\nof Jahveh even in the eighth century B.C., where is the point of Isaiah's\nscathing admonitions to his countrymen: \"To what purpose is the multitude\nof your sacrifices unto me? saith Jahveh: I am full of the burnt-offerings\nof rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of\nbullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats\" (Isa. i. 11). Or of Micah's inquiry,\n\"Will Jahveh be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of\nrivers of oil?\" (vi. 7). And in the innumerable passages in which Jahveh is\nsaid to be jealous of other gods, to be angry, to be appeased, and to\nrepent; in which he is represented as casting off Saul because the king\ndoes not quite literally execute a command of the most ruthless severity;\nor as smiting Uzzah to death because the unfortunate man thoughtlessly, but\nnaturally enough, put out his hand to stay the ark from falling--can any\none deny that the old Israelites conceived Jahveh not only in the image of\na man, but in that of a changeable, irritable, and, occasionally, violent\nman? There appears to me, then, to be no reason to doubt that the notion of\nlikeness to man, which was indubitably held of the {145} ghost Elohim, was\ncarried out consistently throughout the whole series of Elohim, and that\nJahveh-Elohim was thought of as a being of the same substantially human\nnature as the rest, only immeasurably more powerful for good and for evil.\n\nThe absence of any real distinction between the Elohim of different ranks\nis further clearly illustrated by the corresponding absence of any sharp\ndelimitation between the various kinds of people who serve as the media of\ncommunication between them and men. The agents through whom the lower\nElohim are consulted are called necromancers, wizards, and diviners, and\nare looked down upon by the prophets and priests of the higher Elohim; but\nthe \"seer\" connects the two, and they are all alike in their essential\ncharacters of media. The wise woman of Endor was believed by others, and, I\nhave little doubt, believed herself, to be able to \"bring up\" whom she\nwould from Sheol, and to be inspired, whether in virtue of actual\npossession by the evoked Elohim, or otherwise, with a knowledge of hidden\nthings. I am unable to see that Saul's servant took any really different\nview of Samuel's powers, though he may have believed that he obtained them\nby the grace of the higher Elohim. For when Saul fails to find his father's\nasses, his servant says to him--\n\n    Behold, there is in this city a man of Elohim, and he is a man that is\n    held in honour; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go\n    thither; peradventure he can tell us concerning our journey whereon we\n    go. Then said Saul to his servant, But behold if we go, what shall we\n    bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels and there is not a\n    present to {146} bring to the man of Elohim. What have we? And the\n    servant answered Saul again and said, Behold I have in my hand the\n    fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of\n    Elohim to tell us our way. (Beforetime in Israel when a man went to\n    inquire of Elohim, then he said, Come and let us go to the Seer: for he\n    that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer[32]) (1 Sam.\n    ix. 6-10).\n\nIn fact, when, shortly afterwards, Saul accidentally meets Samuel, he says,\n\"Tell me, I pray thee, where the Seer's house is.\" Samuel answers, \"I am\nthe Seer.\" Immediately afterwards Samuel informs Saul that the asses are\nfound, though how he obtained his knowledge of the fact is not stated. It\nwill be observed that Samuel is not spoken of here as, in any special\nsense, a seer or prophet of Jahveh, but as a \"man of Elohim\"--that is to\nsay, a seer having access to the \"spiritual powers,\" just as the wise woman\nof Endor might have been said to be a \"woman of Elohim\"--and the narrator's\nor editor's explanatory note seems to indicate that \"Prophet\" is merely a\nname, introduced later than the time of Samuel, for a superior kind of\n\"Seer,\" or \"man of Elohim.\"[33]\n\nAnother very instructive passage shows that Samuel was not only considered\nto be diviner, seer, and prophet in one, but that he was also, to all\nintents and purposes, priest of Jahveh--though, {147} according to his\nbiographer, he was not a member of the tribe of Levi. At the outset of\ntheir acquaintance, Samuel says to Saul, \"Go up before me into the high\nplace,\" where, as the young maidens of the city had just before told Saul,\nthe Seer was going, \"for the people will not eat till he come, because he\ndoth bless the sacrifice\" (1 Sam. x. 12). The use of the word \"bless\"\nhere--as if Samuel were not going to sacrifice, but only to offer a\nblessing or thanksgiving--is curious. But that Samuel really acted as\npriest seems plain from what follows. For he not only asks Saul to share in\nthe customary sacrificial feast, but he disposes in Saul's favour of that\nportion of the victim which the Levitical legislation, doubtless embodying\nold customs, recognises as the priest's special property.[34]\n\nAlthough particular persons adopted the profession of media between men and\nElohim, there was no limitation of the power, in the view of ancient\nIsrael, to any special class of the population. Saul inquires of Jahveh and\nbuilds him altars on his own account; and in the very remarkable story told\nin the {148} fourteenth chapter of the first book of Samuel (v. 37-46),\nSaul appears to conduct the whole process of divination, although he has a\npriest at his elbow. David seems to do the same.\n\nMoreover, Elohim constantly appear in dreams--which in old Israel did not\nmean that, as we should say, the subject of the appearance \"dreamed he saw\nthe spirit\"; but that he veritably saw the Elohim which, as a soul, visited\nhis soul while his body was asleep. And, in the course of the history of\nIsrael, Jahveh himself thus appears to all sorts of persons, non-Israelites\nas well as Israelites. Again, the Elohim possess, or inspire, people\nagainst their will, as in the case of Saul and Saul's messengers, and then\nthese people prophesy--that is to say, \"rave\"--and exhibit the ungoverned\ngestures attributed by a later age to possession by malignant spirits.\nApart from other evidence to be adduced by and by, the history of ancient\ndemonology and of modern revivalism does not permit me to doubt that the\naccounts of these phenomena given in the history of Saul may be perfectly\nhistorical.\n\nIn the ritual practices, of which evidence is to be found in the books of\nJudges and Samuel, the chief part is played by sacrifices, usually burnt\nofferings. Whenever the aid of the Elohim of Israel is sought, or thanks\nare considered due to him, an altar is built, and oxen, sheep, and goats\nare slaughtered and offered up. Sometimes the entire victim is burnt as a\nholocaust; more frequently only certain parts, notably the fat about the\nkidneys, are burnt on the {149} altar. The rest is properly cooked; and,\nafter the reservation of a part for the priest, is made the foundation of a\njoyous banquet, in which the sacrificer, his family, and such guests as he\nthinks fit to invite, participate.[35] Elohim was supposed to share in the\nfeast, and it has been already shown that that which was set apart on the\naltar, or consumed by fire, was spoken of as the food of Elohim, who was\nthought to be influenced by the costliness, or by the pleasant smell, of\nthe sacrifice in favour of the sacrificer.\n\nAll this bears out the view that, in the mind of the old Israelite, there\nwas no difference, save one of degree, between one Elohim and another. It\nis true that there is but little direct evidence to show that the old\nIsraelites shared the widespread belief of their own, and indeed of all\ntimes, that the spirits of the dead not only continue to exist, but are\ncapable of a ghostly kind of feeding and are grateful for such aliment as\ncan be assimilated by their attenuated substance, and even for clothes,\nornaments, and weapons.[36] That they were familiar with this doctrine in\nthe time of the captivity is suggested by the well-known reference of\nEzekiel (xxxii. 27) to the \"mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised,\nwhich {150} are gone down to [Sheol] hell with their weapons of war, and\nhave laid their swords under their heads.\" Perhaps there is a still earlier\nallusion in the \"giving of food for the dead\" spoken of in Deuteronomy\n(xxvi. 14).[37]\n\nIt must be remembered that the literature of the old Israelites, as it lies\nbefore us, has been subjected to the revisal of strictly monotheistic\neditors, violently opposed to all kinds of idolatry, who are not likely to\nhave selected from the materials at their disposal any obvious evidence,\neither of the practice under discussion, or of that ancestor-worship which\nis so closely related to it, for preservation in the permanent records of\ntheir people.\n\nThe mysterious objects known as _Teraphim_, which are occasionally\nmentioned in Judges, Samuel, and elsewhere, however, can hardly be\ninterpreted otherwise than as indications of the existence both of\nancestor-worship and of image-worship in old Israel. {151} The teraphim\nwere certainly images of family gods, and, as such, in all probability\nrepresented deceased ancestors. Laban indignantly demands of his\nson-in-law, \"Wherefore hast thou stolen my Elohim?\" which Rachel, who must\nbe assumed to have worshipped Jacob's God, Jahveh, had carried off,\nobviously because she, like her father, believed in their divinity. It is\nnot suggested that Jacob was in any way scandalised by the idolatrous\npractices of his favourite wife, whatever he may have thought of her\nhonesty when the truth came to light; for the teraphim seem to have\nremained in his camp, at least until he \"hid\" his strange gods \"under the\noak that was by Shechem\" (Gen. xxxv. 4). And indeed it is open to question\nif he got rid of them then, for the subsequent history of Israel renders it\nmore than doubtful whether the teraphim were regarded as \"strange gods\"\neven as late as the eighth century B.C.\n\nThe writer of the books of Samuel takes it quite as a matter of course that\nMichal, daughter of one royal Jahveh worshipper and wife of the servant of\nJahveh _par excellence_, the pious David, should have her teraphim handy,\nin her and David's chamber, when she dresses them up in their bed into a\nsimulation of her husband, for the purpose of deceiving her father's\nmessengers. Even one of the early prophets, Hosea, when he threatens that\nthe children of Israel shall abide many days without \"ephod or teraphim\"\n(iii. 4), appears to regard both as equally proper appurtenances of the\nsuspended worship of Jahveh, and equally certain to be restored when that\nis resumed. {152} When we further take into consideration that only in the\nreign of Hezekiah was the brazen serpent, preserved in the temple and\nbelieved to be the work of Moses, destroyed, and the practice of offering\nincense to it, that is, worshipping it, abolished--that Jeroboam could set\nup \"calves of gold\" for Israel to worship, with apparently none but a\npolitical object, and certainly with no notion of creating a schism among\nthe worshippers of Jahveh, or of repelling the men of Judah from his\nstandard--it seems obvious, either that the Israelites of the tenth and\neleventh centuries B.C. knew not the second commandment, or that they\nconstrued it merely as part of the prohibition to worship any supreme god\nother than Jahveh, which precedes it.\n\nIn seeking for information about the teraphim, I lighted upon the following\npassage in the valuable article on that subject by Archdeacon Farrar, in\nKitto's _Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature_, which is so much to the\npurpose of my argument, that I venture to quote it in full:--\n\n    The main and certain results of this review are that the teraphim were\n    rude human images; that the use of them was an antique Aramaic custom;\n    that there is reason to suppose them to have been images of deceased\n    ancestors; that they were consulted oracularly; that they were not\n    confined to Jews; that their use continued down to the latest period of\n    Jewish history; and lastly, that although the enlightened prophets and\n    strictest later kings regarded them as idolatrous, the priests were\n    much less averse to such images, and their cult was not considered in\n    any way repugnant to the pious worship of Elohim, nay, even to the\n    worship of him \"under the awful title of Jehovah.\" In fact, they\n    involved _a monotheistic idolatry very different indeed from {153}\n    polytheism_; and the tolerance of them by priests, as compared with the\n    denunciation of them by the prophets, offers a close analogy to the\n    views of the Roman Catholics respecting pictures and images as compared\n    with the views of Protestants. It was against this use of idolatrous\n    symbols and emblems in a monotheistic worship that the _second_\n    commandment was directed, whereas the first is aimed against the graver\n    sin of direct polytheism. But the whole history of Israel shows how\n    utterly and how early the law must have fallen into desuetude. The\n    worship of the golden calf and of the calves at Dan and Bethel, against\n    which, so far as we know, neither Elijah nor Elisha said a single word;\n    the tolerance of high places, teraphim and betylia; the offering of\n    incense for centuries to the brazen serpent destroyed by Hezekiah; the\n    occasional glimpses of the most startling irregularities sanctioned\n    apparently even in the temple worship itself, prove most decisively\n    that a pure monotheism and an independence of symbols was the result of\n    a slow and painful course of God's disciplinal dealings among the\n    noblest thinkers of a single nation, and not, as is so constantly and\n    erroneously urged, the instinct of the whole Semitic race; in other\n    words, one single branch of the Semites was under God's providence\n    _educated_ into pure monotheism only by centuries of misfortune and\n    series of inspired men (vol. iii. p. 986).\n\nIt appears to me that the researches of the anthropologist lead him to\nconclusions identical in substance, if not in terms, with those here\nenunciated as the result of a careful study of the same subject from a\ntotally different point of view.\n\nThere is abundant evidence in the books of Samuel and elsewhere that an\narticle of dress termed an _ephod_ was supposed to have a peculiar efficacy\nin enabling the wearer to exercise divination by means of Jahveh-Elohim.\nGreat and long continued have been the disputes as to the exact nature of\nthe ephod--whether it always means something to wear, or {154} whether it\nsometimes means an image. But the probabilities are that it usually\nsignifies a kind of waistcoat or broad zone, with shoulder-straps, which\nthe person who \"inquired of Jahveh\" put on. In 1 Samuel xxiii. 2 David\nappears to have inquired without an ephod, for Abiathar the priest is said\nto have \"come down with an ephod in his hand\" only subsequently. And then\nDavid asks for it before inquiring of Jahveh whether the men of Keilah\nwould betray him or not. David's action is obviously divination pure and\nsimple; and it is curious that he seems to have worn the ephod himself and\nnot to have employed Abiathar as a medium. How the answer was given is not\nclear, though the probability is that it was obtained by casting lots. The\n_Urim_ and _Thummim_ seem to have been two such lots of a peculiarly sacred\ncharacter, which were carried in the pocket of the high priest's\n\"breastplate.\" This last was worn along with the ephod.\n\nWith the exception of one passage (1 Sam. xiv. 18) the ark is ignored in\nthe history of Saul. But in this place the Septuagint reads \"ephod\" for\nark, while in 1 Chronicles xiii. 3 David says that \"we sought not unto it\n[the ark] in the days of Saul.\" Nor does Samuel seem to have paid any\nregard to the ark after its return from Philistia; though, in his\nchildhood, he is said to have slept in \"the temple of Jahveh, where the ark\nof Elohim was\" (1 Sam. iii. 3), at Shiloh, and there to have been the seer\nof the earliest apparitions vouchsafed to him by Jahveh. The space between\nthe cherubim or winged images on the {155} canopy or cover (_Kapporeth_) of\nthis holy chest was held to be the special seat of Jahveh--the place\nselected for a temporary residence of the Supreme Elohim who had, after\nAaron and Phineas, Eli and his sons for priests and seers. And, when the\nark was carried to the camp at Eben-ezer, there can be no doubt that the\nIsraelites, no less than the Philistines, held that \"Elohim is come into\nthe camp\" (iv. 7), and that the one, as much as the other, conceived that\nthe Israelites had summoned to their aid a powerful ally in \"these (or\nthis) mighty Elohim\"--elsewhere called Jahve-Sabaoth, the Jahveh of Hosts.\nIf the \"temple\" at Shiloh was the pentateuchal tabernacle, as is suggested\nby the name of \"tent of meeting\" given to it in 1 Samuel ii. 22, it was\nessentially a large tent, though constituted of very expensive and ornate\nmaterials; if, on the other hand, it was a different edifice, there can be\nlittle doubt that this \"house of Jahveh\" was built on the model of an\nordinary house of the time. But there is not the slightest evidence that,\nduring the reign of Saul, any greater importance attached to this seat of\nthe cult of Jahveh than to others. Sanctuaries, and \"high places\" for\nsacrifice, were scattered all over the country from Dan to Beersheba. And,\nas Samuel is said to have gone up to one of these high places to bless the\nsacrifice, it may be taken for tolerably certain that he knew nothing of\nthe Levitical laws which severely condemn the high places and those who\nsacrifice away from the sanctuary hallowed by the presence of the ark.\n\nThere is no evidence that, during the time of the {156} Judges and of\nSamuel, any one occupied the position of the high priest of later days. And\npersons who were neither priests nor Levites sacrificed and divined or\n\"inquired of Jahveh,\" when they pleased and where they pleased, without the\nleast indication that they, or any one else in Israel at that time, knew\nthey were doing wrong. There is no allusion to any special observance of\nthe Sabbath; and the references to circumcision are indirect.\n\n\n\nSuch are the chief articles of the theological creed of the old Israelites,\nwhich are made known to us by the direct evidence of the ancient record to\nwhich we have had recourse, and they are as remarkable for that which they\ncontain as for that which is absent from them. They reveal a firm\nconviction that, when death takes place, a something termed a soul or\nspirit leaves the body and continues to exist in Sheol for a period of\nindefinite duration, even though there is no proof of any belief in\nabsolute immortality; that such spirits can return to earth to possess and\ninspire the living; that they are, in appearance and in disposition,\nlikenesses of the men to whom they belonged, but that, as spirits, they\nhave larger powers and are freer from physical limitations; that they thus\nform a group among a number of kinds of spiritual existences known as\nElohim, of whom Jahveh, the national God of Israel, is one; that,\nconsistently with this view, Jahveh was conceived as a sort of spirit,\nhuman in aspect and in senses, and with many human passions, but with\nimmensely greater intelligence and power than any {157} other Elohim,\nwhether human or divine. Further, the evidence proves that this belief was\nthe basis of the Jahveh-worship to which Samuel and his followers were\ndevoted; that there is strong reason for believing, and none for doubting,\nthat idolatry, in the shape of the worship of the family gods or teraphim,\nwas practised by sincere and devout Jahveh-worshippers; that the ark, with\nits protective tent or tabernacle, was regarded as a specially, but by no\nmeans exclusively, favoured sanctuary of Jahveh; that the ephod appears to\nhave had a particular value for those who desired to divine by the help of\nJahveh; and that divination by lots was practised before Jahveh. On the\nother hand, there is not the slightest evidence of any belief in\nretribution after death, but the contrary; ritual obligations have at least\nas strong sanction as moral; there are clear indications that some of the\nmost stringent of the Levitical laws were unknown even to Samuel; priests\noften appear to be superseded by laymen, even in the performance of\nsacrifices and divination; and no line of demarcation can be drawn between\nnecromancer, wizard, seer, prophet, and priest, each of whom is regarded,\nlike all the rest, as a medium of communication between the world of Elohim\nand that of living men.\n\n\n\nThe theological system thus defined offers to the anthropologist no feature\nwhich is devoid of a parallel in the known theologies of other races of\nmankind, even of those who inhabit parts of the world most remote from\nPalestine. And the foundation of the {158} whole, the ghost theory, is\nexactly that theological speculation which is the most widely spread of\nall, and the most deeply rooted among uncivilised men. I am able to base\nthis statement, to some extent, on facts within my own knowledge. In\nDecember 1848, H.M.S. _Rattlesnake_, the ship to which I then belonged, was\nanchored off Mount Ernest, an island in Torres Straits. The people were few\nand well disposed; and, when a friend of mine (whom I will call B.) and I\nwent ashore, we made acquaintance with an old native, Paouda by name. In\ncourse of time we became quite intimate with the old gentleman, partly by\nthe rendering of mutual good offices, but chiefly because Paouda believed\nhe had discovered that B. was his father-in-law. And his grounds for this\nsingular conviction were very remarkable. We had made a long stay at Cape\nYork hard by; and, in accordance with a theory which is widely spread among\nthe Australians, that white men are the reincarnated spirits of black men,\nB. was held to be the ghost, or _narki_, of a certain Mount Ernest native,\none Antarki, who had lately died, on the ground of some real or fancied\nresemblance to the latter. Now Paouda had taken to wife a daughter of\nAntarki's, named Domani, and as soon as B. informed him that he was the\nghost of Antarki, Paouda at once admitted the relationship and acted upon\nit. For, as all the women on the island had hidden away in fear of the\nship, and we were anxious to see what they were like, B. pleaded\npathetically with Paouda that it would be very unkind not to let him see\nhis daughter and grandchildren. {159} After a good deal of hesitation and\nthe exaction of pledges of deep secrecy, Paouda consented to take B., and\nmyself as B.'s friend, to see Domani and the three daughters, by whom B.\nwas received quite as one of the family, while I was courteously welcomed\non his account.\n\nThis scene made an impression upon me which is not yet effaced. It left no\nquestion on my mind of the sincerity of the strange ghost theory of these\nsavages, and of the influence which their belief has on their practical\nlife. I had it in my mind, as well as many a like result of subsequent\nanthropological studies, when, in 1869,[38] I wrote as follows:--\n\n    There are savages without God in any proper sense of the word, but none\n    without ghosts. And the Fetishism, Ancestor-worship, Hero-worship, and\n    Demonology of primitive savages are all, I believe, different manners\n    of expression of their belief in ghosts, and of the anthropomorphic\n    interpretation of out-of-the-way events which is its concomitant.\n    Witchcraft and sorcery are the practical expressions of these beliefs;\n    and they stand in the same relation to religious worship as the simple\n    anthropomorphism of children or savages does to theology.\n\nI do not quote myself with any intention of making a claim to originality\nin putting forth this view; for I have since discovered that the same\nconception is virtually contained in the great _Discours sur l'Histoire\nUniverselle_ of Bossuet, now more than two centuries old:--\n\n    Le culte des hommes morts faisoit presque tout le fond de l'idolatrie:\n    presque tous les hommes sacrifioient aux manes, {160} c'est-a-dire aux\n    ames des morts. De si anciennes erreurs nous font voir a la verite\n    combien etoit ancienne la croyance de l'immortalite de l'ame, et nous\n    montrent qu'elle doit etre rangee parmi les premieres traditions du\n    genre humain. Mais l'homme, qui gatoit tout, en avoit etrangement\n    abuse, puisqu'elle le portoit a sacrifier aux morts. On alloit meme\n    jusqu'a cet exces, de leur sacrifier des hommes vivans: on tuoit leurs\n    esclaves, et meme leurs femmes, pour les aller servir dans l'autre\n    monde.[39]\n\nAmong more modern writers J. G. Mueller, in his excellent _Geschichte der\namerikanischen Urreligionen_ (1855), clearly recognises \"gespensterhafter\nGeisterglaube\" as the foundation of all savage and semi-civilised theology,\nand I need do no more than mention the important developments of the same\nview which are to be found in Mr. Tylor's _Primitive Culture_, and in the\nwritings of Mr. Herbert Spencer, especially his recently-published\n_Ecclesiastical Institutions_.[40]\n\nIt is a matter of fact that, whether we direct our attention to the older\nconditions of civilised societies, in Japan, in China, in Hindostan, in\nGreece, or in Rome,[41] we find underlying all other theological notions\nthe belief in ghosts, with its inevitable concomitant sorcery; and a\nprimitive cult in the shape of a worship of ancestors, which is essentially\nan attempt to please, or appease, their ghosts. The {161} same thing is\ntrue of old Mexico and Peru, and of every semi-civilised or savage people\nwho have developed a definite cult; and in those who, like the natives of\nAustralia, have not even a cult, the belief in, and fear of, ghosts is as\nstrong as anywhere else. The most clearly demonstrable article of the\ntheology of the Israelites in the eleventh and twelfth centuries B.C. is\ntherefore simply the article which is to be found in all primitive\ntheologies, namely, the belief that a man has a soul which continues to\nexist after death for a longer or shorter time, and may return, as a ghost,\nwith a divine, or at least demonic, character, to influence for good or\nevil (and usually for evil) the affairs of the living. But the\ncorrespondence between the old Israelitic and other archaic forms of\ntheology extends to details. If, in order to avoid all chance of direct\ncommunication, we direct our attention to the theology of semi-civilised\npeople, such as the Polynesian Islanders, separated by the greatest\npossible distance, and by every conceivable barrier, from the inhabitants\nof Palestine, we shall find not merely that all the features of\nold-Israelitic theology, which are revealed in the records cited, are found\namong them; but that extant information as to the inner mind of these\npeople tends to remove many of the difficulties which those who have not\nstudied anthropology find in the Hebrew narrative.\n\nOne of the best sources, if not the best source, of information on these\ntopics is Mariner's _Tonga Islands_, which tells us of the condition of\nCook's \"Friendly Islanders\" eighty years ago, before {162} European\ninfluence was sensibly felt among them. Mariner, a youth of fair education\nand of no inconsiderable natural ability (as the work which was drawn up\nfrom the materials he furnished shows), was about fifteen years of age when\nhis ship was attacked and plundered by the Tongans: he remained four years\nin the islands, familiarised himself with the language, lived the life of\nthe people, became intimate with many of them, and had every opportunity of\nacquainting himself with their opinions, as well as with their habits and\ncustoms. He seems to have been devoid of prejudices, theological or other,\nand the impression of strict accuracy which his statements convey has been\njustified by all the knowledge of Polynesian life which has been\nsubsequently acquired.\n\nIt is desirable, therefore, to pay close attention to that which Mariner\ntells us about the theological views of these people:--\n\n    The human soul,[42] after its separation from the body, is termed a\n    _hotooa_ (a god or spirit), and is believed to exist in the shape of\n    the body; to have the same propensities as during life, but to be\n    corrected by a more enlightened understanding, by which it readily\n    distinguishes good from evil, truth from falsehood, right from wrong;\n    having the same attributes as the original gods, but in a minor degree,\n    and having its dwelling for ever in the happy regions of Bolotoo,\n    holding the same rank in regard to other souls as during this life; it\n    has, however, the power of returning to Tonga to inspire priests,\n    relations, or others, or to appear in dreams to those it wishes to\n    admonish; {163} and sometimes to the external eye in the form of a\n    ghost or apparition; but this power of reappearance at Tonga\n    particularly belongs to the souls of chiefs rather than of matabooles\n    (vol. ii. p. 130).\n\nThe word \"hotooa\" is the same as that which is usually spelt \"atua\" by\nPolynesian philologues, and it will be convenient to adopt this spelling.\nNow under this head of \"_Atuas_ or supernatural intelligent beings\" the\nTongans include:--\n\n    1. The original gods. 2. The souls of nobles that have all attributes\n    in common with the first but inferior in degree. 3. The souls of\n    matabooles[43] that are still inferior, and have not the power as the\n    two first have of coming back to Tonga to inspire the priests, though\n    they are supposed to have the power of appearing to their relatives. 4.\n    The original attendants or servants, as it were, of the gods, who,\n    although they had their origin and have ever since existed in Bolotoo,\n    are still inferior to the third class. 5. The _Atua pow_ or mischievous\n    gods. 6. _Mooi_, or the god that supports the earth and does not belong\n    to Bolotoo (vol. ii. pp. 103, 104).\n\nFrom this it appears that the \"Atuas\" of the Polynesian are exactly\nequivalent to the \"Elohim\" of the old Israelite.[44] They comprise\neverything spiritual, from a ghost to a god, and from \"the merely tutelar\ngods to particular private families\" (vol. ii. p. 104), to Ta-li-y-Tooboo,\nwho was the national god of Tonga. The Tongans had no doubt that these\nAtuas daily and hourly influenced their destinies and could, conversely, be\ninfluenced by them. {164} Hence their \"piety,\" the incessant acts of\nsacrificial worship which occupied their lives, and their belief in omens\nand charms. Moreover, the Atuas were believed to visit particular\npersons,--their own priests in the case of the higher gods, but apparently\nanybody in that of the lower,--and to inspire them by a process which was\nconceived to involve the actual residence of the god, for the time being,\nin the person inspired, who was thus rendered capable of prophesying (vol.\nii. p. 100). For the Tongan, therefore, inspiration indubitably was\npossession.\n\nWhen one of the higher gods was invoked, through his priest, by a chief who\nwished to consult the oracle, or, in old Israelitic phraseology, to\n\"inquire of,\" the god, a hog was killed and cooked over night, and,\ntogether with plantains, yams, and the materials for making the peculiar\ndrink _kava_ (of which the Tongans were very fond), was carried next day to\nthe priest. A circle, as for an ordinary kava-drinking entertainment, was\nthen formed; but the priest, as the representative of the god, took the\nhighest place, while the chiefs sat outside the circle, as an expression of\nhumility calculated to please the god.\n\n    As soon as they are all seated the priest is considered as inspired,\n    the god being supposed to exist within him from that moment. He remains\n    for a considerable time in silence with his hands clasped before him,\n    his eyes are cast down and he rests perfectly still. During the time\n    the victuals are being shared out and the kava preparing, the\n    matabooles sometimes begin to consult him; sometimes he answers, and at\n    other times not; in either case he remains with his eyes cast down.\n    Frequently he will not utter a word till the repast is finished and the\n    kava too. When he speaks he generally begins in a low {165} and very\n    altered tone of voice, which gradually rises to nearly its natural\n    pitch, though sometimes a little above it. All that he says is supposed\n    to be the declaration of the god, and he accordingly speaks in the\n    first person, as if he were the god. All this is done generally without\n    any apparent inward emotion or outward agitation; but, on some\n    occasions, his countenance becomes fierce, and as it were inflamed, and\n    his whole frame agitated with inward feeling; he is seized with an\n    universal trembling, the perspiration breaks out on his forehead, and\n    his lips turning black are convulsed; at length tears start in floods\n    from his eyes, his breast heaves with great emotion, and his utterance\n    is choked. These symptoms gradually subside. Before this paroxysm comes\n    on, and after it is over, he often eats as much as four hungry men\n    under other circumstances could devour. The fit being now gone off, he\n    remains for some time calm and then takes up a club that is placed by\n    him for the purpose, turns it over and regards it attentively; he then\n    looks up earnestly, now to the right, now to the left, and now again at\n    the club; afterwards he looks up again and about him in like manner,\n    and then again fixes his eyes on the club, and so on for several times.\n    At length he suddenly raises the club, and, after a moment's pause,\n    strikes the ground or the adjacent part of the house with considerable\n    force; immediately the god leaves him, and he rises up and retires to\n    the back of the ring among the people (vol. i. pp. 100, 101).\n\nThe phenomena thus described, in language which, to any one who is familiar\nwith the manifestations of abnormal mental states among ourselves, bears\nthe stamp of fidelity, furnish a most instructive commentary upon the story\nof the wise woman of Endor. As in the latter, we have the possession by the\nspirit or soul (Atua, Elohim), the strange voice, the speaking in the first\nperson. Unfortunately nothing (beyond the loud cry) is mentioned as to the\nstate of the wise woman of Endor. But what we learn from other sources\n(_e.g._ 1 Sam. x. 20-24) respecting the physical {166} concomitants of\ninspiration among the old Israelites has its exact equivalent in this and\nother accounts of Polynesian prophetism. An excellent authority,\nMoerenhout, who lived among the people of the Society Islands many years\nand knew them well, says that, in Tahiti, the _role_ of the prophet had\nvery generally passed out of the hands of the priests into that of private\npersons who professed to represent the god, often assumed his name, and in\nthis capacity prophesied. I will not run the risk of weakening the force of\nMoerenhout's description of the prophetic state by translating it:--\n\n    Un individu, dans cet etat, avait le bras gauche enveloppe d'un morceau\n    d'etoffe, signe de la presence de la Divinite. Il ne parlait que d'un\n    ton imperieux et vehement. Ses attaques, quand il allait prophetiser,\n    etaient aussi effroyables qu'imposantes. Il tremblait d'abord de tous\n    ses membres, la figure enflee, les yeux hagards, rouges et etincelants\n    d'une expression sauvage. Il gesticulait, articulait des mots vides de\n    sens, poussait des cris horribles qui faisaient tressaillir tous les\n    assistans, et s'exaltait parfois au point qu'on n'osait pas\n    l'approcher. Autour de lui, le silence de la terreur et du respect....\n    C'est alors qu'il repondait aux questions, annoncait l'avenir, le\n    destin des batailles, la volonte des dieux; et, chose etonnante! au\n    sein de ce delire, de cet enthousiasme religieux, son langage etait\n    grave, imposant, son eloquence noble et persuasive.[45]\n\nJust so Saul strips off his clothes, \"prophesies\" before Samuel, and lies\ndown \"naked all that day and night.\"\n\nBoth Mariner and Moerenhout refuse to have recourse to the hypothesis of\nimposture in order to {167} account for the inspired state of the\nPolynesian prophets. On the contrary, they fully believe in their\nsincerity. Mariner tells the story of a young chief, an acquaintance of\nhis, who thought himself possessed by the Atua of a dead woman who had\nfallen in love with him, and who wished him to die that he might be near\nher in Bolotoo. And he died accordingly. But the most valuable evidence on\nthis head is contained in what the same authority says about King Finow's\nson. The previous king, Toogoo Ahoo, had been assassinated by Finow, and\nhis soul, become an Atua of divine rank in Bolotoo, had been pleased to\nvisit and inspire Finow's son--with what particular object does not appear.\n\n    When this young chief returned to Hapai, Mr. Mariner, who was upon a\n    footing of great friendship with him, one day asked him how he felt\n    himself when the spirit of Toogoo Ahoo visited him; he replied that he\n    could not well describe his feelings, but the best he could say of it\n    was, that he felt himself all over in a glow of heat and quite restless\n    and uncomfortable, and did not feel his own personal identity, as it\n    were, but seemed to have a mind different from his own natural mind,\n    his thoughts wandering upon strange and unusual subjects, although\n    perfectly sensible of surrounding objects. He next asked him how he\n    knew it was the spirit of Toogoo Ahoo? His answer was, \"There's a fool!\n    How can I tell you _how_ I knew it? I felt and knew it was so by a kind\n    of consciousness; my _mind_ told me that it was Toogoo Ahoo\" (vol. i.\n    pp. 104, 105).\n\nFinow's son was evidently made for a theological disputant, and fell back\nat once on the inexpugnable stronghold of faith when other evidence was\nlacking. \"There's a fool! I know it is true, because I know it,\" is the\nexemplar and epitome of the {168} sceptic-crushing process in other places\nthan the Tonga Islands.\n\nThe island of Bolotoo, to which all the souls (of the upper classes at any\nrate) repair after the death of the body, and from which they return at\nwill to interfere, for good or evil, with the lives of those whom they have\nleft behind, obviously answers to Sheol. In Tongan tradition this place of\nsouls is a sort of elysium above ground, and pleasant enough to live in.\nBut, in other parts of Polynesia, the corresponding locality, which is\ncalled Po, has to be reached by descending into the earth, and is\nrepresented dark and gloomy like Sheol. But it was not looked upon as a\nplace of rewards and punishments in any sense. Whether in Bolotoo or in Po,\nthe soul took the rank it had in the flesh; and, a shadow, lived among the\nshadows of the friends and houses and food of its previous life.\n\nThe Tongan theologians recognised several hundred gods; but there was one,\nalready mentioned as their national god, whom they regarded as far greater\nthan any of the others, \"as a great chief from the top of the sky down to\nthe bottom of the earth\" (Mariner, vol. ii. p. 106). He was also god of\nwar, and the tutelar deity of the royal family, whoever happened to be the\nincumbent of the royal office for the time being. He had no priest except\nthe king himself, and his visits, even to royalty, were few and far\nbetween. The name of this supreme deity was Ta-li-y-Tooboo, the literal\nmeaning of which is said to be \"Wait there, Tooboo,\" from which it would\nappear {169} that the peculiar characteristic of Ta-li-y-Tooboo, in the\neyes of his worshippers, was persistence of duration. And it is curious to\nnotice, in relation to this circumstance, that many Hebrew philologers have\nthought the meaning of Jahveh to be best expressed by the word \"Eternal.\"\nIt would probably be difficult to express the notion of an eternal being,\nin a dialect so little fitted to convey abstract conceptions as Tongan,\nbetter than by that of one who always \"waits there.\"\n\nThe characteristics of the gods in Tongan theology are exactly those of men\nwhose shape they are supposed to possess, only they have more intelligence\nand greater power. The Tongan belief that, after death, the human Atua more\nreadily distinguishes good from evil, runs parallel with the old Israelitic\nconception of Elohim expressed in Genesis, \"Ye shall be as Elohim, knowing\ngood from evil.\" They further agreed with the old Israelites, that \"all\nrewards for virtue and punishments for vice happen to men in this world\nonly, and come immediately from the gods\" (vol. ii. p. 100). Moreover, they\nwere of opinion that though the gods approve of some kinds of virtue and\nare displeased with some kinds of vice, and, to a certain extent, protect\nor forsake their worshippers according to their moral conduct, yet neglect\nto pay due respect to the deities, and forgetfulness to keep them in good\nhumour, might be visited with even worse consequences than moral\ndelinquency. And those who will carefully study the so-called \"Mosaic code\"\ncontained in the {170} books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, will see\nthat, though Jahveh's prohibitions of certain forms of immorality are\nstrict and sweeping, his wrath is quite as strongly kindled against\ninfractions of ritual ordinances. Accidental homicide may go unpunished,\nand reparation may be made for wilful theft. On the other hand, Nadab and\nAbihu, who \"offered strange fire before Jahveh, which he had not commanded\nthem,\" were swiftly devoured by Jahveh's fire; he who sacrificed anywhere\nexcept at the allotted place was to be \"cut off from his people\"; so was he\nwho eat blood; and the details of the upholstery of the Tabernacle, of the\nmillinery of the priests' vestments, and of the cabinet work of the ark,\ncan plead direct authority from Jahveh, no less than moral commands.\n\nAmongst the Tongans, the sacrifices were regarded as gifts of food and\ndrink offered to the divine Atuas, just as the articles deposited by the\ngraves of the recently dead were meant as food for Atuas of lower rank. A\nkava root was a constant form of offering all over Polynesia. In the\nexcellent work of the Rev. George Turner, entitled _Nineteen Years in\nPolynesia_ (p. 241), I find it said of the Samoans (near neighbours of the\nTongans):--\n\n    _The offerings_ were principally cooked food. As in ancient Greece so\n    in Samoa, the first cup was in honour of the god. It was either poured\n    out on the ground or _waved_ towards the heavens, reminding us again of\n    the Mosaic ceremonies. The chiefs all drank a portion out of the same\n    cup, according to rank; and after that, the food brought as an offering\n    was divided and eaten \"_there before the Lord_.\"\n\nIn Tonga, when they consulted a god who had a {171} priest, the latter, as\nrepresentative of the god, had the first cup; but if the god, like\nTa-li-y-Tooboo, had no priest, then the chief place was left vacant, and\nwas supposed to be occupied by the god himself. When the first cup of kava\nwas filled, the mataboole who acted as master of the ceremonies said, \"Give\nit to your god,\" and it was offered, though only as a matter of form. In\nTonga and Samoa there were many sacred places or _morais_, with houses of\nthe ordinary construction, but which served as temples in consequence of\nbeing dedicated to various gods; and there were altars on which the\nsacrifices were offered; nevertheless there were few or no images. Mariner\nmentions none in Tonga, and the Samoans seem to have been regarded as no\nbetter than atheists by other Polynesians because they had none. It does\nnot appear that either of these peoples had images even of their family or\nancestral gods.\n\nIn Tahiti and the adjacent islands, Moerenhout (t. i. p. 471) makes the\nvery interesting observation, not only that idols were often absent, but\nthat, where they existed, the images of the gods served merely as\ndepositories for the proper representatives of the divinity. Each of these\nwas called a _maro aurou_, and was a kind of girdle artistically adorned\nwith red, yellow, blue, and black feathers--the red feathers being\nespecially important--which were consecrated and kept as sacred objects\nwithin the idols. They were worn by great personages on solemn occasions,\nand conferred upon their wearers a sacred and almost divine character.\nThere is no distinct evidence that the {172} _maro aurou_ was supposed to\nhave any special efficacy in divination, but one cannot fail to see a\ncertain parallelism between this holy girdle, which endowed its wearer with\na particular sanctity, and the ephod.\n\nAccording to the Rev. R. Taylor, the New Zealanders formerly used the word\n_karakia_ (now employed for \"prayer\") to signify a \"spell, charm, or\nincantation,\" and the utterance of these karakias constituted the chief\npart of their cult. In the south, the officiating priest had a small image,\n\"about eighteen inches long, resembling a peg with a carved head,\" which\nreminds one of the form commonly attributed to the teraphim.\n\n    The priest first bandaged a fillet of red parrot feathers under the\n    god's chin, which was called his pahau or beard; this bandage was made\n    of a certain kind of sennet, which was tied on in a peculiar way. When\n    this was done it was taken possession of by the Atua, whose spirit\n    entered it. The priest then either held it in the hand and vibrated it\n    in the air, whilst the powerful karakia was repeated, or he tied a\n    piece of string (formed of the centre of a flax leaf) round the neck of\n    the image and stuck it in the ground. He sat at a little distance from\n    it, leaning against a tuahu, a short stone pillar stuck in the ground\n    in a slanting position, and holding the string in his hand, he gave the\n    god a jerk to arrest his attention, lest he should be otherwise\n    engaged, like Baal of old, either hunting, fishing, or sleeping, and\n    therefore must be awaked.... The god is supposed to make use of the\n    priest's tongue in giving a reply. Image-worship appears to have been\n    confined to one part of the island. The Atua was supposed only to enter\n    the image for the occasion. The natives declare they did not worship\n    the image itself, but only the Atua it represented, and that the image\n    was merely used as a way of approaching him.[46]\n\n{173}\n\nThis is the excuse for image-worship which the more intelligent idolaters\nmake all the world over; but it is more interesting to observe that, in the\npresent case, we seem to have the equivalents of divination by teraphim,\nwith the aid of something like an ephod (which, however, is used to\nsanctify the image and not the priest) mixed up together. Many Hebrew\narchaeologists have supposed that the term \"ephod\" is sometimes used for an\nimage (particularly in the case of Gideon's ephod), and the story of Micah,\nin the book of Judges, shows that images were, at any rate, employed in\nclose association with the ephod. If the pulling of the string to call the\nattention of the god seems as absurd to us as it appears to have done to\nthe worthy missionary, who tells us of the practice, it should be\nrecollected that the high priest of Jahveh was ordered to wear a garment\nfringed with golden bells.\n\n    And it shall be upon Aaron to minister; and the sound thereof shall be\n    heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before Jahveh, and when he\n    cometh out, that he die not (Exod. xxviii. 35).\n\nAn escape from the obvious conclusion suggested by this passage has been\nsought in the supposition that these bells rang for the sake of the\nworshippers, as at the elevation of the host in the Roman Catholic ritual;\nbut then why should the priest be threatened with the well-known penalty\nfor inadvisedly beholding the divinity?\n\nIn truth, the intermediate step between the Maori practice and that of the\nold Israelites is furnished by {174} the Kami temples in Japan. These are\nprovided with bells which the worshippers who present themselves ring, in\norder to call the attention of the ancestor-god to their presence. Grant\nthe fundamental assumption of the essentially human character of the\nspirit, whether Atua, Kami, or Elohim, and all these practices are equally\nrational.\n\nThe sacrifices to the gods in Tonga, and elsewhere in Polynesia, were\nordinarily social gatherings, in which the god, either in his own person or\nin that of his priestly representative, was supposed to take part. These\nsacrifices were offered on every occasion of importance, and even the daily\nmeals were prefaced by oblations and libations of food and drink, exactly\nanswering to those offered by the old Romans to their manes, penates, and\nlares. The sacrifices had no moral significance, but were the necessary\nresult of the theory that the god was either a deified ghost of an ancestor\nor chief, or, at any rate, a being of like nature to these. If one wanted\nto get anything out of him, therefore, the first step was to put him in\ngood humour by gifts; and if one desired to escape his wrath, which might\nbe excited by the most trifling neglect or unintentional disrespect, the\ngreat thing was to pacify him by costly presents. King Finow appears to\nhave been somewhat of a freethinker (to the great horror of his subjects),\nand it was only his untimely death which prevented him from dealing with\nthe priest of a god, who had not returned a favourable answer to his\nsupplications, as Saul dealt with the priests of the sanctuary of Jahveh at\nNob. {175} Nevertheless, Finow showed his practical belief in the gods\nduring the sickness of a daughter, to whom he was fondly attached, in a\nfashion which has a close parallel in the history of Israel.\n\n    If the gods have any resentment against us, let the whole weight of\n    vengeance fall on my head. I fear not their vengeance--but spare my\n    child; and I earnestly entreat you, Toobo Totai [the god whom he had\n    invoked], to exert all your influence with the other gods that I alone\n    may suffer all the punishment they desire to inflict (vol. i. p. 354).\n\nSo when the king of Israel has sinned by \"numbering the people,\" and they\nare punished for his fault by a pestilence which slays seventy thousand\ninnocent men, David cries to Jahveh:--\n\n    Lo, I have sinned, and I have done perversely: but these sheep, what\n    have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against\n    my father's house (2 Sam. xxiv. 17).\n\nHuman sacrifices were extremely common in Polynesia; and, in Tonga, the\n\"devotion\" of a child by strangling was a favourite method of averting the\nwrath of the gods. The well-known instances of Jephthah's sacrifice of his\ndaughter and of David's giving up the seven sons of Saul to be sacrificed\nby the Gibeonites \"before Jahveh,\" appear to me to leave no doubt that the\nold Israelites, even when devout worshippers of Jahveh, considered human\nsacrifices, under certain circumstances, to be not only permissible but\nlaudable. Samuel's hewing to pieces of the miserable captive, sole survivor\nof his nation, Agag, \"before Jahveh,\" can hardly be viewed in any other\nlight. The life of Moses is redeemed from Jahveh, who \"sought {176} to slay\nhim,\" by Zipporah's symbolical sacrifice of her child, by the bloody\noperation of circumcision. Jahveh expressly affirms that the first-born\nmales of men and beasts are devoted to him; in accordance with that claim,\nthe first-born males of the beasts are duly sacrificed; and it is only by\nspecial permission that the claim to the first-born of men is waived, and\nit is enacted that they may be redeemed (Exod. xiii. 12-15). Is it possible\nto avoid the conclusion that immolation of their first-born sons would have\nbeen incumbent on the worshippers of Jahveh, had they not been thus\nspecially excused? Can any other conclusion be drawn from the history of\nAbraham and Isaac? Does Abraham exhibit any indication of surprise when he\nreceives the astounding order to sacrifice his son? Is there the slightest\nevidence that there was anything in his intimate and personal acquaintance\nwith the character of the Deity, who had eaten the meat and drunk the milk\nwhich Abraham set before him under the oaks of Mamre, to lead him to\nhesitate--even to wait twelve or fourteen hours for a repetition of the\ncommand? Not a whit. We are told that \"Abraham rose early in the morning\"\nand led his only child to the slaughter, as if it were the most ordinary\nbusiness imaginable. Whether the story has any historical foundation or\nnot, it is valuable as showing that the writer of it conceived Jahveh as a\ndeity whose requirement of such a sacrifice need excite neither\nastonishment, nor suspicion of mistake, on the part of his devotee. Hence,\nwhen the incessant human {177} sacrifices in Israel, during the age of the\nkings, are put down to the influence of foreign idolatries, we may fairly\ninquire whether editorial Bowdlerising has not prevailed over historical\ntruth.\n\nAn attempt to compare the ethical standards of two nations, one of which\nhas a written code, while the other has not, is beset with difficulties.\nWith all that is strange and, in many cases, repulsive to us in the social\narrangements and opinions respecting moral obligation among the Tongans, as\nthey are placed before us, with perfect candour, in Mariner's account,\nthere is much that indicates a strong ethical sense. They showed great\nkindliness to one another, and faithfulness in standing by their comrades\nin war. No people could have better observed either the third or the fifth\ncommandment; for they had a particular horror of blasphemy, and their\nrespectful tenderness towards their parents and, indeed, towards old people\nin general, was remarkable.\n\nIt cannot be said that the eighth commandment was generally observed,\nespecially where Europeans were concerned; but nevertheless a well-bred\nTongan looked upon theft as a meanness to which he would not condescend. As\nto the seventh commandment, any breach of it was considered scandalous in\nwomen and as something to be avoided in self-respecting men, but among\nunmarried and widowed people chastity was held very cheap. Nevertheless the\nwomen were extremely well treated, and often showed themselves capable of\ngreat devotion and entire faithfulness. In the matter of cruelty,\ntreachery, and {178} bloodthirstiness, these islanders were neither better\nnor worse than most peoples of antiquity. It is to the credit of the\nTongans that they particularly objected to slander; nor can covetousness be\nregarded as their characteristic; for Mariner says:--\n\n    When any one is about to eat, he always shares out what he has to those\n    about him, without any hesitation, and a contrary conduct would be\n    considered exceedingly vile and selfish (vol. ii. p. 145).\n\nIn fact, they thought very badly of the English when Mariner told them that\nhis countrymen did not act exactly on that principle. It further appears\nthat they decidedly belonged to the school of intuitive moral philosophers,\nand believed that virtue is its own reward; for\n\n    Many of the chiefs, on being asked by Mr. Mariner what motives they had\n    for conducting themselves with propriety, besides the fear of\n    misfortunes in this life, replied, the agreeable and happy feeling\n    which a man experiences within himself when he does any good action or\n    conducts himself nobly and generously as a man ought to do; and this\n    question they answered as if they wondered such a question should be\n    asked (vol. ii. p. 161).\n\nOne may read from the beginning of the book of Judges to the end of the\nbooks of Samuel without discovering that the old Israelites had a moral\nstandard which differs, in any essential respect (except perhaps in regard\nto the chastity of unmarried women), from that of the Tongans. Gideon,\nJephthah, Samson, and David are strong-handed men, some of whom are not\noutdone by any Polynesian chieftain in the matter of murder and treachery;\n{179} while Deborah's jubilation over Jael's violation of the primary duty\nof hospitality, proffered and accepted under circumstances which give a\npeculiarly atrocious character to the murder of the guest; and her\nwitch-like gloating over the picture of the disappointment of the mother of\nthe victim--\n\n  The mother of Sisera cried through the lattice,\n  Why is his chariot so long in coming? (Jud. v. 28).\n\n--would not have been out of place in the choral service of the most\nsanguinary god in the Polynesian pantheon.\n\nWith respect to the cannibalism which the Tongans occasionally practised,\nMariner says:--\n\n    Although a few young ferocious warriors chose to imitate what they\n    considered a mark of courageous fierceness in a neighbouring nation, it\n    was held in disgust by everybody else (vol. ii. p. 171).\n\nThat the moral standard of Tongan life was less elevated than that\nindicated in the \"Book of the Covenant\" (Exod. xxi.-xxiii.) may be freely\nadmitted. But then the evidence that this Book of the Covenant, and even\nthe ten commandments as given in Exodus, were known to the Israelites of\nthe time of Samuel and Saul, is (to say the least) by no means conclusive.\nThe Deuteronomic version of the fourth commandment is hopelessly discrepant\nfrom that which stands in Exodus. Would any later writer have ventured to\nalter the commandments as given from Sinai, if he had had before him that\nwhich professed to be an accurate statement of the \"ten words\" in Exodus?\nAnd if the writer of {180} Deuteronomy had not Exodus before him, what is\nthe value of the claim of the version of the ten commandments therein\ncontained to authenticity? From one end to the other of the books of Judges\nand Samuel, the only \"commandments of Jahveh\" which are specially adduced\nrefer to the prohibition of the worship of other gods, or are orders given\n_ad hoc_, and have nothing to do with questions of morality.\n\nIn Polynesia, the belief in witchcraft, in the appearance of spiritual\nbeings in dreams, in possession as the cause of diseases, and in omens,\nprevailed universally. Mariner tells a story of a woman of rank who was\ngreatly attached to King Finow, and who, for the space of six months after\nhis death, scarcely ever slept elsewhere than on his grave, which she kept\ncarefully decorated with flowers:--\n\n    One day she went, with the deepest affliction, to the house of Mo-oonga\n    Toobo, the widow of the deceased chief, to communicate what had\n    happened to her at the _fytoca_ [grave] during several nights, and\n    which caused her the greatest anxiety. She related that she had dreamed\n    that the late How [king] appeared to her and, with a countenance full\n    of disappointment, asked why there yet remained at Vavaoo so many\n    evil-designing persons: for he declared that, since he had been at\n    Bolotoo, his spirit had been disturbed[47] by the evil machinations of\n    wicked men conspiring against his son; but he declared that \"the youth\"\n    should not be molested nor his power shaken by the spirit of rebellion;\n    that he therefore came to her with a warning voice to prevent such\n    disastrous consequences (vol. i. p. 424).\n\nOn inquiry it turned out that the charm of _tattao_ had been performed on\nFinow's grave, with the view {181} of injuring his son, the reigning king,\nand it is to be presumed that it was this sorcerer's work which had\n\"disturbed\" Finow's spirit. The Rev. Richard Taylor says in the work\nalready cited: \"The account given of the witch of Endor agrees most\nremarkably with the witches of New Zealand\" (p. 45).\n\nThe Tongans also believed in a mode of divination (essentially similar to\nthe casting of lots) by the twirling of a cocoa-nut.\n\n    The object of inquiry ... is chiefly whether a sick person will\n    recover; for this purpose the nut being placed on the ground, a\n    relation of the sick person determines that, if the nut, when again at\n    rest, points to such a quarter, the east for example, that the sick man\n    will recover; he then prays aloud to the patron god of the family that\n    he will be pleased to direct the nut so that it may indicate the truth;\n    the nut being next spun, the result is attended to with confidence, at\n    least with a full conviction that it will truly declare the intentions\n    of the gods at the time (vol. ii. p. 227).\n\nDoes not the action of Saul, on a famous occasion, involve exactly the same\ntheological presuppositions?\n\n    Therefore Saul said unto Jahveh, the Elohim of Israel, Shew the right.\n    And Jonathan and Saul were taken _by lot_: but the people escaped. And\n    Saul said, Cast _lots_ between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was\n    taken. And Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done.... And\n    the people rescued Jonathan so that he died not (1 Sam. xiv. 41-45).\n\nAs the Israelites had great yearly feasts, so had the Polynesians; as the\nIsraelites practised circumcision, so did many Polynesian people; as the\nIsraelites had a complex and often arbitrary-seeming multitude of\ndistinctions between clean and unclean things, and clean and unclean states\nof men, to which {182} they attached great importance, so had the\nPolynesians their notions of ceremonial purity and their _tabu_, an equally\nextensive and strange system of prohibitions, violation of which was\nvisited by death. These doctrines of cleanness and uncleanness no doubt may\nhave taken their rise in the real or fancied utility of the prescriptions,\nbut it is probable that the origin of many is indicated in the curious\nhabit of the Samoans to make fetishes of living animals. It will be\nrecollected that these people had no \"gods made with hands,\" but they\nsubstituted animals for them.\n\nAt his birth\n\n    every Samoan was supposed to be taken under the care of some tutelary\n    god or _aitu_ [ = Atua] as it was called. The help of perhaps half a\n    dozen different gods was invoked in succession on the occasion, but the\n    one who happened to be addressed just as the child was born was marked\n    and declared to be the child's god for life.\n\n    These gods were supposed to appear in some _visible incarnation_, and\n    the particular thing in which his god was in the habit of appearing\n    was, to the Samoan, an object of veneration. It was in fact his idol,\n    and he was careful never to injure it or treat it with contempt. One,\n    for instance, saw his god in the eel, another in the shark, another in\n    the turtle, another in the dog, another in the owl, another in the\n    lizard; and so on, throughout all the fish of the sea and birds and\n    four-footed beasts and creeping things. In some of the shell-fish even,\n    gods were supposed to be present. A man would eat freely of what was\n    regarded as the incarnation of the god of another man, but the\n    incarnation of his own particular god he would consider it death to\n    injure or eat.[48]\n\nWe have here that which appears to be the origin, or one of the origins, of\nfood prohibitions, on the one {183} hand, and of totemism on the other.\nWhen it is remembered that the old Israelities sprang from ancestors who\nare said to have resided near, or in, one of the great seats of ancient\nBabylonian civilisation, the city of Ur; that they had been, it is said for\ncenturies, in close contact with the Egyptians; and that, in the theology\nof both the Babylonians and the Egyptians there is abundant evidence,\nnotwithstanding their advanced social organisation, of the belief in\nspirits, with sorcery, ancestor-worship, the deification of animals, and\nthe converse animalisation of gods--it obviously needs very strong evidence\nto justify the belief that the rude tribes of Israel did not share the\nnotions from which their far more civilised neighbours had not emancipated\nthemselves.\n\nBut it is surely needless to carry the comparison further. Out of the\nabundant evidence at command, I think that sufficient has been produced to\nfurnish ample grounds for the belief, that the old Israelites of the time\nof Samuel entertained theological conceptions which were on a level with\nthose current among the more civilised of the Polynesian islanders, though\ntheir ethical code may possibly, in some respects, have been more\nadvanced.[49]\n\nA theological system of essentially similar character, exhibiting the same\nfundamental conceptions respecting the continued existence and incessant\ninterference in human affairs of disembodied spirits, prevails, or formerly\nprevailed, among the whole of {184} the inhabitants of the Polynesian and\nMelanesian islands, and among the people of Australia, notwithstanding the\nwide differences in physical character and in grade of civilisation which\nobtain among them. And the same proposition is true of the people who\ninhabit the riverain shores of the Pacific Ocean, whether Dyaks, Malays,\nIndo-Chinese, Chinese, Japanese, the wild tribes of America, or the highly\ncivilised old Mexicans and Peruvians. It is no less true of the Mongolic\nnomads of Northern Asia, of the Asiatic Aryans, and of the ancient Greeks\nand Romans, and it holds good among the Dravidians of the Dekhan and the\nnegro tribes of Africa. No tribe of savages, which has yet been discovered,\nhas been conclusively proved to have so poor a theological equipment as to\nbe devoid of a belief in ghosts, and in the utility of some form of\nwitchcraft in influencing those ghosts. And there is no nation, modern or\nancient, which, even at this moment, has wholly given up the belief; and in\nwhich it has not, at one time or other, played a great part in practical\nlife.\n\nThis _sciotheism_,[50] as it might be called, is found in several degrees\nof complexity, in rough correspondence with the stages of social\norganisation, and, like these, separated by no sudden breaks.\n\nIn its simplest condition, such as may be met with among the Australian\nsavages, theology is a mere {185} belief in the existence, powers, and\ndisposition (usually malignant) of ghostlike entities who may be\npropitiated or scared away; but no cult can properly be said to exist. And,\nin this stage, theology is wholly independent of ethics. The moral code,\nsuch as is implied by public opinion, derives no sanction from the\ntheological dogmas, and the influence of the spirits is supposed to be\nexerted out of mere caprice or malice.\n\nAs a next stage, the fundamental fear of ghosts and the consequent desire\nto propitiate them acquire an organised ritual in simple forms of\nancestor-worship, such as the Rev. Mr. Turner describes among the people of\nTanna (_l.c._ p. 88); and this line of development may be followed out\nuntil it attains its acme in the State-theology of China and the\nKami-theology[51] of Japan. Each of these is essentially ancestor-worship,\nthe ancestors being reckoned back through family groups of higher and\nhigher order, sometimes with strict reference to the principle of agnation,\nas in old Rome; and, as in the latter, it is intimately bound up with the\nwhole organisation of the State. There are no idols; inscribed tablets in\nChina, and strips of paper lodged in a peculiar portable shrine in Japan,\nrepresent the souls of the deceased, or the special seats which they occupy\nwhen sacrifices are offered by their descendants. In Japan it is\ninteresting to observe that a national {186} Kami--Ten-zio-dai-zin--is\nworshipped as a sort of Jahveh by the nation in general, and (as Lippert\nhas observed) it is singular that his special seat is a portable\nlitter-like shrine, termed the Mikosi, in some sort analogous to the\nIsraelitic ark. In China, the emperor is the representative of the\nprimitive ancestors, and stands, as it were, between them and the supreme\ncosmic deities--Heaven and Earth--who are superadded to them, and who\nanswer to the Tangaloa and the Maui of the Polynesians.\n\nSciotheism, under the form of the deification of ancestral ghosts, in its\nmost pronounced form, is therefore the chief element in the theology of a\ngreat moiety, possibly of more than half, of the human race. I think this\nmust be taken to be a matter of fact--though various opinions may be held\nas to how this ancestor-worship came about. But, on the other hand, it is\nno less a matter of fact that there are very few people without additional\ngods, who cannot, with certainty, be accounted for as deified ancestors.\n\nWith all respect for the distinguished authorities on the other side, I\ncannot find good reasons for accepting the theory that the cosmic\ndeities--who are superadded to deified ancestors even in China; who are\nfound all over Polynesia, in Tangaloa and Maui, and in old Peru, in the\nSun--are the product either of the \"search after the infinite,\" or of\nmistakes arising out of the confusion of a great chief's name with the\nthing signified by the name. But, however this may be, I think it is again\nmerely matter of fact that, among a large portion of {187} mankind,\nancestor-worship is more or less thrown into the background either by such\ncosmic deities, or by tribal gods of uncertain origin, who have been raised\nto eminence by the superiority in warfare, or otherwise, of their\nworshippers.\n\nAmong certain nations, the polytheistic theology, thus constituted, has\nbecome modified by the selection of some one cosmic or tribal god, as the\nonly god to whom worship is due on the part of that nation (though it is by\nno means denied that other nations have a right to worship other gods), and\nthus results a worship of one God--_monolatry_, as Wellhausen calls\nit--which is very different from genuine monotheism.[52] In ancestral\nsciotheism, and in this _monolatry_, the ethical code, often of a very high\norder, comes into closer relation with the theological creed. Morality is\ntaken under the patronage of the god or gods, who reward all morally good\nconduct and punish all morally evil conduct in this world or the next. At\nthe same time, however, they are conceived to be thoroughly human, and they\nvisit any shadow of disrespect to themselves, shown by disobedience to\ntheir commands, or by delay, or carelessness, in carrying them out, as\nseverely as any breach of the moral laws. Piety means minute attention to\nthe due performance of all sacred rites, and covers any number of lapses in\nmorality, just as cruelty, treachery, murder, and adultery did not bar\nDavid's claim to the title of the man after God's own heart among the\nIsraelites; crimes against men may be expiated, {188} but blasphemy against\nthe gods is an unpardonable sin. Men forgive all injuries but those which\ntouch their self-esteem; and they make their gods after their own likeness,\nin their own image make they them.\n\n\n\nIt is in the category of monolatry that I conceive the theology of the old\nIsraelites must be ranged. They were polytheists, in so far as they\nadmitted the existence of other Elohim of divine rank beside Jahveh; they\ndiffered from ordinary polytheists, in so far as they believed that Jahveh\nwas the supreme god and the one proper object of their own national\nworship. But it will doubtless be objected that I have been building up a\nfictitious Israelitic theology on the foundation of the recorded habits and\ncustoms of the people, when they had lapsed from the ordinances of their\ngreat lawgiver and prophet Moses, and that my conclusions may be good for\nthe perverts to Canaanitish theology, but not for the true observers of the\nSinaitic legislation. The answer to the objection is that--so far as I can\nform a judgment of that which is well ascertained in the history of\nIsrael--there is very little ground for believing that we know much, either\nabout the theological and social value of the influence of Moses, or about\nwhat happened during the wanderings in the Desert.\n\nThe account of the Exodus and of the occurrences in the Sinaitic peninsula;\nin fact, all the history of Israel before the invasion of Canaan, is full\nof wonderful stories which may be true, in so far as they {189} are\nconceivable occurrences, but which are certainly not probable, and which I,\nfor one, decline to accept until evidence, which deserves that name, is\noffered of their historical truth. Up to this time I know of none.[53]\nFurthermore, I see no answer to the argument that one has no right to pick\nout of an obviously unhistorical statement the assertions which happen to\nbe probable and discard the rest. But it is also certain that a primitively\nveracious tradition may be smothered under subsequent mythical additions,\nand that one has no right to cast away the former along with the latter.\nThus, perhaps the fairest way of stating the case may be as follows.\n\nThere can be no _a priori_ objection to the supposition that the Israelites\nwere delivered from their Egyptian bondage by a leader called Moses, and\nthat he exerted a great influence over their subsequent organisation in the\ndesert. There is no reason to doubt that, during their residence in the\nland of Goshen, the Israelites knew nothing of Jahveh; but, as their own\nprophets declare (see Ezek. xx.), were polytheistic idolaters, sharing in\nthe worst practices of their neighbours. As to their conduct in other\nrespects, nothing is known. But it may fairly be suspected that their\nethics were not of a higher order than those of Jacob their progenitor, in\nwhich case they might derive great profit from contact with Egyptian\nsociety, which held honesty and {190} truthfulness in the highest esteem.\nThanks to the Egyptologers, we now know, with all requisite certainty, the\nmoral standard of that society in the time, and long before the time, of\nMoses. It can be determined from the scrolls buried with the mummified dead\nand from the inscriptions on the tombs and memorial statues of that age.\nFor, though the lying of epitaphs is proverbial, so far as their subject is\nconcerned, they give an unmistakable insight into that which the writers\nand the readers of them think praiseworthy.\n\nIn the famous tombs at Beni Hassan there is a record of the life of Prince\nNakht, who served Osertasen II., a Pharaoh of the twelfth dynasty, as\ngovernor of a province. The inscription speaks in his name: \"I was a\nbenevolent and kindly governor who loved his country.... Never was a little\nchild distressed nor a widow ill-treated by me. I have never repelled a\nworkman or hindered a shepherd. I gave alike to the widow and to the\nmarried woman, and have not preferred the great to the small in my gifts.\"\nAnd we have the high authority of the late Dr. Samuel Birch for the\nstatement that the inscriptions of the twelfth dynasty abound in\ninjunctions of a high ethical character. \"To feed the hungry, give drink to\nthe thirsty, clothe the naked, bury the dead, loyally serve the king,\nformed the first duty of a pious man and faithful subject.\"[54] The people\nfor whom these inscriptions embodied their ideal of praiseworthiness\nassuredly had no imperfect {191} conception of either justice or mercy. But\nthere is a document which gives still better evidence of the moral standard\nof the Egyptians. It is the \"Book of the Dead,\" a sort of \"Guide to\nSpiritland,\" the whole, or a part, of which was buried with the mummy of\nevery well-to-do Egyptian, while extracts from it are found in innumerable\ninscriptions. Portions of this work are of extreme antiquity, evidence of\ntheir existence occurring as far back as the fifth and sixth dynasties;\nwhile the 125th chapter, which constitutes a sort of book by itself, and is\nknown as the \"Book of Redemption in the Hall of the two Truths,\" is\nfrequently inscribed upon coffins and other monuments of the nineteenth\ndynasty (that under which, there is reason to believe, the Israelites were\noppressed and the Exodus took place), and it occurs, more than once, in the\nfamous tombs of the kings of this and the preceding dynasty at Thebes.[55]\nThis \"Book of Redemption\" is chiefly occupied by the so-called \"negative\nconfession\" made to the forty-two Divine Judges, in which the soul of the\ndead denies that he has committed faults of various kinds. It is,\ntherefore, obvious that the Egyptians conceived that their gods commanded\nthem not to do the deeds which are here denied. The \"Book of Redemption,\"\nin fact, implies the existence in the mind of the Egyptians, if not in a\nformal writing, of a series of ordinances couched, like the majority of the\nten {192} commandments, in negative terms. And it is easy to prove the\nimplied existence of a series which nearly answers to the \"ten words.\" Of\ncourse a polytheistic and image-worshipping people, who observed a great\nmany holy days, but no Sabbaths, could have nothing analogous to the first\nor the second and the fourth commandments of the Decalogue; but, answering\nto the third, is \"I have not blasphemed;\" to the fifth, \"I have not reviled\nthe face of the king or my father;\" to the sixth, \"I have not murdered;\" to\nthe seventh, \"I have not committed adultery;\" to the eighth, \"I have not\nstolen,\" \"I have not done fraud to man;\" to the ninth, \"I have not told\nfalsehoods in the tribunal of truth,\" and, further, \"I have not calumniated\nthe slave to his master.\" I find nothing exactly similar to the tenth\ncommandment; but that the inward disposition of mind was held to be of no\nless importance than the outward act is to be gathered from the praises of\nkindliness already cited and the cry of \"I am pure,\" which is repeated by\nthe soul on trial. Moreover, there is a minuteness of detail in the\nconfession which shows no little delicacy of moral appreciation--\"I have\nnot privily done evil against mankind,\" \"I have not afflicted men,\" \"I have\nnot withheld milk from the mouths of sucklings,\" \"I have not been idle,\" \"I\nhave not played the hypocrite,\" \"I have not told falsehoods,\" \"I have not\ncorrupted woman or man,\" \"I have not caused fear,\" \"I have not multiplied\nwords in speaking.\"\n\nWould that the moral sense of the nineteenth {193} century A.D. were as far\nadvanced as that of the Egyptians in the nineteenth century B.C. in this\nlast particular! What incalculable benefit to mankind would flow from\nstrict observance of the commandment, \"Thou shalt not multiply words in\nspeaking!\" Nothing is more remarkable than the stress which the old\nEgyptians, here and elsewhere, lay upon this and other kinds of\ntruthfulness, as compared with the absence of any such requirement in the\nIsraelitic Decalogue, in which only a specific kind of untruthfulness is\nforbidden.\n\nIf, as the story runs, Moses was adopted by a princess of the royal house,\nand was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, it is surely\nincredible that he should not have been familiar, from his youth up, with\nthe high moral code implied in the \"Book of Redemption.\" It is surely\nimpossible that he should have been less familiar with the complete legal\nsystem, and with the method of administration of justice, which, even in\nhis time, had enabled the Egyptian people to hold together, as a complex\nsocial organisation, for a period far longer than the duration of old Roman\nsociety, from the building of the city to the death of the last Caesar. Nor\nneed we look to Moses alone for the influence of Egypt upon Israel. It is\ntrue that the Hebrew nomads who came into contact with the Egyptians of\nOsertasen, or of Ramses, stood in much the same relation to them, in point\nof culture, as a Germanic tribe did to the Romans of Tiberius or of Marcus\nAntoninus, or as Captain Cook's Omai did to the English of George the\nThird. But, {194} at the same time, any difficulty of communication which\nmight have arisen out of this circumstance was removed by the long\npre-existing intercourse of other Semites, of every grade of civilisation,\nwith the Egyptians. In Mesopotamia and elsewhere, as in Phenicia, Semitic\npeople had attained to a social organisation as advanced as that of the\nEgyptians; Semites had conquered and occupied Lower Egypt for centuries. So\nextensively had Semitic influences penetrated Egypt that the Egyptian\nlanguage, during the period of the nineteenth dynasty, is said by Brugsch\nto be as full of Semitisms as German is of Gallicisms; while Semitic\ndeities had supplanted the Egyptian gods at Heliopolis and elsewhere. On\nthe other hand, the Semites, as far as Phenicia, were extensively\ninfluenced by Egypt.\n\nIt is generally admitted[56] that Moses, Phinehas (and perhaps Aaron), are\nnames of Egyptian origin, and there is excellent authority for the\nstatement that the name _Abir_, which the Israelites gave to their golden\ncalf, and which is also used to signify the strong, the heavenly, and even\nGod,[57] is simply the Egyptian Apis. Brugsch points out that the god Tum,\nor Tom, who was the special object of worship in the city of Pi-Tom, with\nwhich the Israelites were only too familiar, was called [=A]nkh and the\n\"great god,\" and had no image. [=A]nkh means \"He who lives,\" \"the living\none,\" a name the resemblance of which to the {195} \"I am that I am\" of\nExodus is unmistakable, whatever may be the value of the fact. Every\ndiscussion of Israelitic ritual seeks and finds the explanation of its\ndetails in the portable sacred chests, the altars, the priestly dress, the\nbreastplate, the incense, and the sacrifices depicted on the monuments of\nEgypt. But it must be remembered that these signs of the influence of Egypt\nupon Israel are not necessarily evidence that such influence was exerted\nbefore the Exodus. It may have come much later, through the close\nconnection of the Israel of David and Solomon, first with Phenicia and then\nwith Egypt.\n\nIf we suppose Moses to have been a man of the stamp of Calvin, there is no\ndifficulty in conceiving that he may have constructed the substance of the\nten words, and even of the Book of the Covenant, which curiously resembles\nparts of the Book of the Dead, from the foundation of Egyptian ethics and\ntheology which had filtered through to the Israelites in general, or had\nbeen furnished specially to himself by his early education; just as the\ngreat Genevese reformer built up a puritanic social organisation on so much\nas remained of the ethics and theology of the Roman Church, after he had\ntrimmed them to his liking.\n\nThus, I repeat, I see no _a priori_ objection to the assumption that Moses\nmay have endeavoured to give his people a theologico-political organisation\nbased on the ten commandments (though certainly not quite in their present\nform) and the Book of the Covenant, contained in our present book of\nExodus. But {196} whether there is such evidence as amounts to proof, or, I\nhad better say, to probability, that even this much of the Pentateuch owes\nits origin to Moses is another matter. The mythical character of the\naccessories of the Sinaitic history is patent, and it would take a good\ndeal more evidence than is afforded by the bare assertion of an unknown\nwriter to justify the belief that the people who \"saw the thunderings and\nthe lightnings and the voice of the trumpet and the mountain smoking\"\n(Exod. xx. 18); to whom Jahveh orders Moses to say, \"Ye yourselves have\nseen that I have talked with you from heaven. Ye shall not make other gods\nwith me; gods of silver and gods of gold ye shall not make unto you\"\n(_ibid._ 22, 23), should, less than six weeks afterwards, have done the\nexact thing they were thus awfully forbidden to do. Nor is the credibility\nof the story increased by the statement that Aaron, the brother of Moses,\nthe witness and fellow-worker of the miracles before Pharaoh, was their\nleader and the artificer of the idol. And yet, at the same time, Aaron was\napparently so ignorant of wrongdoing that he made proclamation, \"To-morrow\nshall be a feast to Jahveh,\" and the people proceeded to offer their\nburnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as if everything in their proceedings\nmust be satisfactory to the Deity with whom they had just made a solemn\ncovenant to abolish image-worship. It seems to me that, on a survey of all\nthe facts of the case, only a very cautious and hypothetical judgment is\njustifiable. It may be that Moses profited by the opportunities afforded\nhim of {197} access to what was best in Egyptian society to become\nacquainted, not only with its advanced ethical and legal code, but with the\nmore or less pantheistic unification of the Divine to which the\nspeculations of the Egyptian thinkers, like those of all polytheistic\nphilosophers, from Polynesia to Greece, tend; if indeed the theology of the\nperiod of the nineteenth dynasty was not, as some Egyptologists think, a\nmodification of an earlier, more distinctly monotheistic doctrine of a long\nantecedent age. It took only half a dozen centuries for the theology of\nPaul to become the theology of Gregory the Great; and it is possible that\ntwenty centuries lay between the theology of the first worshippers in the\nsanctuary of the Sphinx and that of the priests of Ramses Maimun.\n\nIt may be that the ten commandments and the Book of the Covenant are based\nupon faithful traditions of the efforts of a great leader to raise his\nfollowers to his own level. For myself, as a matter of pious opinion, I\nlike to think so; as I like to imagine that, between Moses and Samuel,\nthere may have been many a seer, many a herdsman such as him of Tekoah,\nlonely amidst the hills of Ephraim and Judah, who cherished and kept alive\nthese traditions. In the present results of Biblical criticism, however, I\ncan discover no justification for the common assumption that, between the\ntime of Joshua and that of Rehoboam, the Israelites were familiar with\neither the Deuteronomic or the Levitical legislation; or that the theology\nof the Israelites, from the king who sat on the throne to the lowest of his\nsubjects, was in {198} any important respect different from that which\nmight naturally be expected from their previous history and the conditions\nof their existence. But there is excellent evidence to the contrary effect.\nAnd, for my part, I see no reason to doubt that, like the rest of the\nworld, the Israelites had passed through a period of mere ghost-worship,\nand had advanced through Ancestor-worship and Fetishism and Totemism to the\ntheological level at which we find them in the books of Judges and Samuel.\n\n\n\nAll the more remarkable, therefore, is the extraordinary change which is to\nbe noted in the eighth century B.C. The student who is familiar with the\ntheology implied, or expressed, in the books of Judges, Samuel, and the\nfirst book of Kings, finds himself in a new world of thought, in the full\ntide of a great reformation, when he reads Joel, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,\nMicah, and Jeremiah.\n\nThe essence of this change is the reversal of the position which, in\nprimitive society, ethics holds in relation to theology. Originally, that\nwhich men worship is a theological hypothesis, not a moral ideal. The\nprophets, in substance, if not always in form, preach the opposite\ndoctrine. They are constantly striving to free the moral ideal from the\nstifling embrace of the current theology and its concomitant ritual. Theirs\nwas not an intellectual criticism, argued on strictly scientific grounds;\nthe image-worshippers and the believers in the efficacy of sacrifices and\nceremonies might logically have held their {199} own against anything the\nprophets have to say; it was an ethical criticism. From the height of his\nmoral intuition--that the whole duty of man is to do justice and love mercy\nand to bear himself as humbly as befits his insignificance in face of the\nInfinite--the prophet simply laughs at the idolaters of stocks and stones\nand the idolaters of ritual. Idols of the first kind, in his experience,\nwere inseparably united with the practice of immorality, and they were to\nbe ruthlessly destroyed. As for sacrifices and ceremonies, whatever their\nintrinsic value might be, they might be tolerated on condition of ceasing\nto be idols; they might even be praiseworthy on condition of being made to\nsubserve the worship of the true Jahveh--the moral ideal.\n\nIf the realm of David had remained undivided, if the Assyrian and the\nChaldean and the Egyptian had left Israel to the ordinary course of\ndevelopment of an Oriental kingdom, it is possible that the effects of the\nreforming zeal of the prophets of the eighth and seventh centuries might\nhave been effaced by the growth, according to its inevitable tendencies, of\nthe theology which they combated. But the captivity made the fortune of the\nideas which it was the privilege of these men to launch upon an endless\ncareer. With the abolition of the Temple-services for more than half a\ncentury, the priest must have lost and the scribe gained influence. The\npuritanism of a vigorous minority among the Babylonian Jews rooted out\npolytheism from all its hiding-places in the theology which they had\ninherited; they created the first {200} consistent, remorseless, naked\nmonotheism, which, so far as history records, appeared in the world (for\nZoroastrism is practically ditheism, and Buddhism any-theism or no-theism);\nand they inseparably united therewith an ethical code, which, for its\npurity and for its efficiency as a bond of social life, was and is,\nunsurpassed. So I think we must not judge Ezra and Nehemiah and their\nfollowers too hardly, if they exemplified the usual doom of poor humanity\nto escape from one error only to fall into another; if they failed to free\nthemselves as completely from the idolatry of ritual as they had from that\nof images and dogmas; if they cherished the new fetters of the Levitical\nlegislation which they had fitted upon themselves and their nation, as\nthough such bonds had the sanctity of the obligations of morality; and if\nthey led succeeding generations to spend their best energies in building\nthat \"hedge round the Torah\" which was meant to preserve both ethics and\ntheology, but which too often had the effect of pampering the latter and\nstarving the former. The world being what it was, it is to be doubted\nwhether Israel would have preserved intact the pure ore of religion, which\nthe prophets had extracted for the use of mankind as well as for their\nnation, had not the leaders of the nation been zealous, even to death, for\nthe dross of the law in which it was embedded. The struggle of the Jews,\nunder the Maccabean house, against the Seleucidae was as important for\nmankind as that of the Greeks against the Persians. And, of all the strange\nironies of history, perhaps the strangest {201} is that \"Pharisee\" is\ncurrent, as a term of reproach, among the theological descendants of that\nsect of Nazarenes who, without the martyr spirit of those primitive\nPuritans, would never have come into existence. They, like their historical\nsuccessors, our own Puritans, have shared the general fate of the poor wise\nmen who save cities.\n\nA criticism of theology from the side of science is not thought of by the\nprophets, and is at most indicated in the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, in\nboth of which the problem of vindicating the ways of God to man is given\nup, though on different grounds, as a hopeless one. But with the extensive\nintroduction of Greek thought among the Jews, which took place, not only\nduring the domination of the Seleucidae in Palestine, but in the great\nJudaic colony which flourished in Egypt under the Ptolemies, criticism, on\nboth ethical and scientific grounds, took a new departure.\n\nIn the hands of the Alexandrian Jews, as represented by Philo, the\nfundamental axiom of later Jewish, as of Christian monotheism, that the\nDeity is infinitely perfect and infinitely good, worked itself out into its\nlogical consequence--agnostic theism. Philo will allow of no point of\ncontact between God and a world in which evil exists. For him God has no\nrelation to space or to time, and, as infinite, suffers no predicate beyond\nthat of existence. It is, therefore, absurd to ascribe to Him mental\nfaculties and affections comparable in the remotest degree to those of men;\nHe is in no way an object of cognition; He {202} is [Greek: apoios] and\n[Greek: akatalektos][58]--without quality and incomprehensible. That is to\nsay, the Alexandrian Jew of the first century had anticipated the\nreasonings of Hamilton and Mansell in the nineteenth, and, for him, God is\nthe Unknowable in the sense in which that term is used by Mr. Herbert\nSpencer. Moreover, Philo's definition of the Supreme Being would not be\ninconsistent with that \"substantia constans infinitis attributis, quorum\nunumquodque aeternam et infinitam essentiam exprimit,\" given by another\ngreat Israelite, were it not that Spinoza's doctrine of the immanence of\nthe Deity in the world puts him, at any rate formally, at the antipodes of\ntheological speculation. But the conception of the essential\nincognoscibility of the Deity is the same in each case. However, Philo was\ntoo thorough an Israelite and too much the child of his time to be content\nwith this agnostic position. With the help of the Platonic and Stoic\nphilosophy, he constructed an apprehensible, if not comprehensible,\nquasi-deity out of the Logos; while other more or less personified divine\npowers, or attributes, bridged over the interval between God and man;\nbetween the sacred existence, too pure to be called by any name which\nimplied a conceivable quality, and the gross and evil world of matter. In\norder to get over the ethical difficulties presented by the naive\nnaturalism of many parts of {203} those Scriptures, in the divine authority\nof which he firmly believed, Philo borrowed from the Stoics (who had been\nin like straits in respect of Greek mythology), that great Excalibur which\nthey had forged with infinite pains and skill--the method of allegorical\ninterpretation. This mighty \"two-handed engine at the door\" of the\ntheologian is warranted to make a speedy end of any and every moral or\nintellectual difficulty, by showing that, taken allegorically or, as it is\notherwise said, \"poetically,\" or, \"in a spiritual sense,\" the plainest\nwords mean whatever a pious interpreter desires they should mean. In\nBiblical phrase, Zeno (who probably had a strain of Semitic blood in him)\nwas the \"father of all such as reconcile.\" No doubt Philo and his followers\nwere eminently religious men; but they did endless injury to the cause of\nreligion by laying the foundations of a new theology, while equipping the\ndefenders of it with the subtlest of all weapons of offence and defence,\nand with an inexhaustible store of sophistical arguments of the most\nplausible aspect.\n\nThe question of the real bearing upon theology of the influence exerted by\nthe teaching of Philo's contemporary, Jesus of Nazareth, is one upon which\nit is not germane to my present purpose to enter. I take it simply as an\nunquestionable fact that his immediate disciples, known to their countrymen\nas \"Nazarenes,\" were regarded as, and considered themselves to be,\nperfectly orthodox Jews belonging to the puritanic or pharisaic section of\ntheir people, and differing from the rest only in their belief that {204}\nthe Messiah had already come. Christianity, it is said, first became\nclearly differentiated at Antioch, and it separated itself from orthodox\nJudaism by denying the obligation of the rite of circumcision and of the\nfood prohibitions, prescribed by the law. Henceforward theology became\nrelatively stationary among the Jews,[59] and the history of its rapid\nprogress in a new course of evolution is the history of the Christian\nChurches, orthodox and heterodox. The steps in this evolution are obvious.\nThe first is the birth of a new theological scheme arising out of the union\nof elements derived from Greek philosophy with elements derived from\nIsraelitic theology. In the fourth Gospel, the Logos, raised to a somewhat\nhigher degree of personification than in the Alexandrian theosophy, is\nidentified with Jesus of Nazareth. In the Epistles, especially the later of\nthose attributed to Paul, the Israelitic ideas of the Messiah and of\nsacrificial atonement coalesce with one another and with the embodiment of\nthe Logos in Jesus, until the apotheosis of the Son of man is almost, or\nquite, effected. The history of Christian dogma, from Justin to Athanasius,\nis a record of continual progress in the same direction, until the fair\nbody of religion, revealed in almost naked purity by the prophets, is {205}\nonce more hidden under a new accumulation of dogmas and of ritual practices\nof which the primitive Nazarene knew nothing; and which he would probably\nhave regarded as blasphemous if he could have been made to understand them.\n\nAs, century after century, the ages roll on, polytheism comes back under\nthe disguise of Mariolatry and the adoration of saints; image-worship\nbecomes as rampant as in old Egypt; adoration of relics takes the place of\nthe old fetish-worship; the virtues of the ephod pale before those of holy\ncoats and handkerchiefs; shrines and calvaries make up for the loss of the\nark and of the high places; and even the lustral fluid of paganism is\nreplaced by holy water at the porches of the temples. A touching\nceremony--the common meal originally eaten in pious memory of a loved\nteacher--was metamorphosed into a flesh-and-blood sacrifice, supposed to\npossess exactly that redeeming virtue which the prophets denied to the\nflesh-and-blood sacrifices of their day; while the minute observance of\nritual was raised to a degree of punctilious refinement which Levitical\nlegislators might envy. And with the growth of this theology, grew its\ninevitable concomitant, the belief in evil spirits, in possession, in\nsorcery, in charms and omens, until the Christians of the twelfth century\nafter our era were sunk in more debased and brutal superstitions than are\nrecorded of the Israelites in the twelfth century before it.\n\nThe greatest men of the Middle Ages are unable to escape the infection.\nDante's \"Inferno\" would be {206} revolting if it were not so often sublime,\nso often exquisitely tender. The hideous pictures which cover a vast space\non the south wall of the Campo Santo of Pisa convey information, as\nterrible as it is indisputable, of the theological conceptions of Dante's\ncountrymen in the fourteenth century, whose eyes were addressed by the\npainters of those disgusting scenes, and whose approbation they knew how to\nwin. A candid Mexican of the time of Cortez, could he have seen this\nChristian burial-place, would have taken it for an appropriately adorned\nTeocalli. The professed disciple of the God of justice and of mercy might\nthere gloat over the sufferings of his fellow-men depicted as undergoing\nevery extremity of atrocious and sanguinary torture to all eternity, for\ntheological errors no less than for moral delinquencies; while, in the\ncentral figure of Satan,[60] occupied in champing up souls in his\ncapricious and well-toothed jaws, to void them again for the purpose of\nundergoing fresh suffering, we have the counterpart of the strange\nPolynesian and Egyptian dogma that there were certain gods who employed\nthemselves in devouring the ghostly flesh of the spirits of the dead. {207}\nBut, in justice to the Polynesians, it must be recollected that, after\nthree such operations, they thought the soul was purified and happy. In the\nview of the Christian theologian the operation was only a preparation for\nnew tortures continued for ever and aye.\n\nWith the growth of civilisation in Europe, and with the revival of letters\nand of science in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the ethical and\nintellectual criticism of theology once more recommenced, and arrived at a\ntemporary resting-place in the confessions of the various reformed\nProtestant sects in the sixteenth century; almost all of which, as soon as\nthey were strong enough, began to persecute those who carried criticism\nbeyond their own limit. But the movement was not arrested by these\necclesiastical barriers, as their constructors fondly imagined it would be;\nit was continued, tacitly or openly, by Galileo, by Hobbes, by Descartes,\nand especially by Spinoza, in the seventeenth century; by the English\nFreethinkers, by Rousseau, by the French Encyclopaedists, and by the German\nRationalists, among whom Lessing stands out a head and shoulders taller\nthan the rest, throughout the eighteenth century; by the historians, the\nphilologers, the Biblical critics, the geologists, and the biologists in\nthe nineteenth century, until it is obvious to all who can see that the\nmoral sense and the really scientific method of seeking for truth are once\nmore predominating over false science. Once more ethics and theology are\nparting company.\n\nIt is my conviction that, with the spread of true scientific culture,\nwhatever may be the medium, {208} historical, philological, philosophical,\nor physical, through which that culture is conveyed, and with its necessary\nconcomitant, a constant elevation of the standard of veracity, the end of\nthe evolution of theology will be like its beginning--it will cease to have\nany relation to ethics. I suppose that, so long as the human mind exists,\nit will not escape its deep-seated instinct to personify its intellectual\nconceptions. The science of the present day is as full of this particular\nform of intellectual shadow-worship as is the nescience of ignorant ages.\nThe difference is that the philosopher who is worthy of the name knows that\nhis personified hypotheses, such as law, and force, and ether, and the\nlike, are merely useful symbols, while the ignorant and the careless take\nthem for adequate expressions of reality. So, it may be, that the majority\nof mankind may find the practice of morality made easier by the use of\ntheological symbols. And unless these are converted from symbols into\nidols, I do not see that science has anything to say to the practice,\nexcept to give an occasional warning of its dangers. But, when such symbols\nare dealt with as real existences, I think the highest duty which is laid\nupon men of science is to show that these dogmatic idols have no greater\nvalue than the fabrications of men's hands, the stocks and the stones,\nwhich they have replaced.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{209}\n\nV\n\nSCIENCE AND MORALS\n\nIn spite of long and, perhaps, not unjustifiable hesitation, I begin to\nthink that there must be something in telepathy. For evidence, which I may\nnot disregard, is furnished by the last number of the _Fortnightly Review_\nthat, among the hitherto undiscovered endowments of the human species,\nthere may be a power even more wonderful than the mystic faculty by which\nthe esoterically Buddhistic sage \"upon the farthest mountain in Cathay\"\nreads the inmost thoughts of a dweller within the homely circuit of the\nLondon postal district. Great indeed is the insight of such a seer; but how\nmuch greater is his who combines the feat of reading, not merely the\nthoughts of which the thinker is aware, but those of which he knows\nnothing; who sees him unconsciously drawing the conclusions which he\nrepudiates, and supporting the doctrines which he detests. To reflect upon\nthe confusion which the working of such a power as this may introduce into\none's ideas of personality and responsibility is perilous--madness lies\nthat way. But truth is truth, and I am almost fain to believe in {210} this\nmagical visibility of the non-existent when the only alternative is the\nsupposition that the writer of the article on \"Materialism and Morality\" in\nvol. xl. (1886) of the _Fortnightly Review_, in spite of his manifest\nability and honesty, has pledged himself, so far as I am concerned, to\nwhat, if I may trust my own knowledge of my own thoughts, must be called a\nmultitude of errors of the first magnitude.\n\nI so much admire Mr. Lilly's outspokenness, I am so completely satisfied of\nthe uprightness of his intentions, that it is repugnant to me to quarrel\nwith anything he may say; and I sympathise so warmly with his manly scorn\nof the vileness of much that passes under the name of literature in these\ntimes, that I would willingly be silent under his by no means unkindly\nexposition of his theory of my own tenets, if I thought that such personal\nabnegation would serve the interest of the cause we both have at heart. But\nI cannot think so. My creed may be an ill-favoured thing, but it is mine\nown, as Touchstone says of his lady-love; and I have so high an opinion of\nthe solid virtues of the object of my affections that I cannot calmly see\nher personated by a wench who is much uglier and has no virtue worth\nspeaking of. I hope I should be ready to stand by a falling cause if I had\never adopted it; but suffering for a falling cause, which one has done\none's best to bring to the ground, is a kind of martyrdom for which I have\nno taste. In my opinion, the philosophical theory which Mr. Lilly\nattributes to me--but which I have over and over again {211} disclaimed--is\nuntenable and destined to extinction; and I not unreasonably demur to being\ncounted among its defenders.\n\nAfter the manner of a mediaeval disputant, Mr. Lilly posts up three theses,\nwhich, as he conceives, embody the chief heresies propagated by the late\nProfessor Clifford, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and myself. He says that we agree\n\"(1) in putting aside, as unverifiable, everything which the senses cannot\nverify; (2) everything beyond the bounds of physical science; (3)\neverything which cannot be brought into a laboratory and dealt with\nchemically\" (p. 578).\n\nMy lamented young friend Clifford, sweetest of natures though keenest of\ndisputants, is out of reach of our little controversies, but his works\nspeak for him, and those who run may read a refutation of Mr. Lilly's\nassertions in them. Mr. Herbert Spencer, hitherto, has shown no lack either\nof ability or of inclination to speak for himself; and it would be a\nsuperfluity, not to say an impertinence, on my part, to take up the cudgels\nfor him. But, for myself, if my knowledge of my own consciousness may be\nassumed to be adequate (and I make not the least pretension to acquaintance\nwith what goes on in my \"Unbewusstsein\"), I may be permitted to observe\nthat the first proposition appears to me to be not true; that the second is\nin the same case; and that, if there be gradations in untrueness, the third\nis so monstrously untrue that it hovers on the verge of absurdity, even if\nit does not actually flounder in that logical limbo. Thus, to all three\ntheses, I reply in {212} appropriate fashion, _Nego_--I say No; and I\nproceed to state the grounds of that negation, which the proprieties do not\npermit me to make quite so emphatic as I could desire.\n\nLet me begin with the first assertion, that I \"put aside, as unverifiable,\neverything which the senses cannot verify.\" Can such a statement as this be\nseriously made in respect of any human being? But I am not appointed\napologist for mankind in general; and confining my observations to myself,\nI beg leave to point out that, at this present moment, I entertain an\nunshakable conviction that Mr. Lilly is the victim of a patent and enormous\nmisunderstanding, and that I have not the slightest intention of putting\nthat conviction aside because I cannot \"verify\" it either by touch, or\ntaste, or smell, or hearing, or sight, which (in the absence of any trace\nof telepathic faculty) make up the totality of my senses.\n\nAgain, I may venture to admire the clear and vigorous English in which Mr.\nLilly embodies his views; but the source of that admiration does not lie in\nanything which my five senses enable me to discover in the pages of his\narticle, and of which an orang-outang might be just as acutely sensible.\nNo, it lies in an appreciation of literary form and logical structure by\naesthetic and intellectual faculties which are not senses, and which are not\nunfrequently sadly wanting where the senses are in full vigour. My poor\nrelation may beat me in the matter of sensation; but I am quite confident\nthat, when style and syllogisms are to be dealt with, he is nowhere. {213}\n\nIf there is anything in the world which I do firmly believe in, it is the\nuniversal validity of the law of causation; but that universality cannot be\nproved by any amount of experience, let alone that which comes to us\nthrough the senses. And when an effort of volition changes the current of\nmy thoughts, or when an idea calls up another associated idea, I have not\nthe slightest doubt that the process to which the first of the phenomena,\nin each case, is due stands in the relation of cause to the second. Yet the\nattempt to verify this belief by sensation would be sheer lunacy. Now I am\nquite sure that Mr. Lilly does not doubt my sanity; and the only\nalternative seems to be the admission that his first proposition is\nerroneous.\n\nThe second thesis charges me with putting aside \"as unverifiable\"\n\"everything beyond the bounds of physical science.\" Again I say, No.\nNobody, I imagine, will credit me with a desire to limit the empire of\nphysical science, but I really feel bound to confess that a great many very\nfamiliar and, at the same time, extremely important phenomena lie quite\nbeyond its legitimate limits. I cannot conceive, for example, how the\nphenomena of consciousness, as such and apart from the physical process by\nwhich they are called into existence, are to be brought within the bounds\nof physical science. Take the simplest possible example, the feeling of\nredness. Physical science tells us that it commonly arises as a consequence\nof molecular changes propagated from the eye to a certain part of the\nsubstance of the brain, when vibrations of the luminiferous ether of a\ncertain character fall upon {214} the retina. Let us suppose the process of\nphysical analysis pushed so far that one could view the last link of this\nchain of molecules, watch their movements as if they were billiard balls,\nweigh them, measure them, and know all that is physically knowable about\nthem. Well, even in that case, we should be just as far from being able to\ninclude the resulting phenomenon of consciousness, the feeling of redness,\nwithin the bounds of physical science, as we are at present. It would\nremain as unlike the phenomena we know under the names of matter and motion\nas it is now. If there is any plain truth upon which I have made it my\nbusiness to insist over and over again it is this--and whether it is a\ntruth or not, my insistence upon it leaves not a shadow of justification\nfor Mr. Lilly's assertion.\n\nBut I ask in this case also, how is it conceivable that any man, in\npossession of all his natural faculties, should hold such an opinion? I do\nnot suppose that I am exceptionally endowed because I have all my life\nenjoyed a keen perception of the beauty offered us by nature and by art.\nNow physical science may and probably will, some day, enable our posterity\nto set forth the exact physical concomitants and conditions of the strange\nrapture of beauty. But if ever that day arrives, the rapture will remain,\njust as it is now, outside and beyond the physical world; and, even in the\nmental world, something superadded to mere sensation. I do not wish to crow\nunduly over my humble cousin the orang, but in the aesthetic province, as in\nthat of the intellect, I am afraid he is {215} nowhere. I doubt not he\nwould detect a fruit amidst a wilderness of leaves where I could see\nnothing; but I am tolerably confident that he has never been awestruck, as\nI have been, by the dim religious gloom, as of a temple devoted to the\nearthgods, of the tropical forest which he inhabits. Yet I doubt not that\nour poor long-armed and short-legged friend, as he sits meditatively\nmunching his durian fruit, has something behind that sad Socratic face of\nhis which is utterly \"beyond the bounds of physical science.\" Physical\nscience may know all about his clutching the fruit and munching it and\ndigesting it, and how the physical titillation of his palate is transmitted\nto some microscopic cells of the gray matter of his brain. But the feelings\nof sweetness and of satisfaction which, for a moment, hang out their signal\nlights in his melancholy eyes, are as utterly outside the bounds of physics\nas is the \"fine frenzy\" of a human rhapsodist.\n\nDoes Mr. Lilly really believe that, putting me aside, there is any man with\nthe feeling of music in him who disbelieves in the reality of the delight\nwhich he derives from it, because that delight lies outside the bounds of\nphysical science, not less than outside the region of the mere sense of\nhearing? But, it may be, that he includes music, painting, and sculpture\nunder the head of physical science, and in that case I can only regret I am\nunable to follow him in his ennoblement of my favourite pursuits.\n\nThe third thesis runs that I put aside \"as unverifiable\" \"everything which\ncannot be brought into a {216} laboratory and dealt with chemically;\" and,\nonce more, I say No. This wondrous allegation is no novelty; it has not\nunfrequently reached me from that region where gentle (or ungentle) dulness\nso often holds unchecked sway--the pulpit. But I marvel to find that a\nwriter of Mr. Lilly's intelligence and good faith is willing to father such\na wastrel. If I am to deal with the thing seriously, I find myself met by\none of the two horns of a dilemma. Either some meaning, as unknown to usage\nas to the dictionaries, attaches to \"laboratory\" and \"chemical,\" or the\nproposition is (what am I to say in my sore need for a gentle and yet\nappropriate word?)--well--unhistorical.\n\nDoes Mr. Lilly suppose that I put aside \"as unverifiable\" all the truths of\nmathematics, of philology, of history? And if I do not, will he have the\ngreat goodness to say how the binomial theorem is to be dealt with\n\"chemically,\" even in the best appointed \"laboratory\"; or where the\nbalances and crucibles are kept by which the various theories of the nature\nof the Basque language may be tested; or what reagents will extract the\ntruth from any given History of Rome, and leave the errors behind as a\nresidual calx?\n\nI really cannot answer these questions, and unless Mr. Lilly can, I think\nhe would do well hereafter to think more than twice before attributing such\npreposterous notions to his fellow-men, who, after all, as a learned\ncounsel said, are vertebrated animals.\n\nThe whole thing perplexes me much; and I am {217} sure there must be an\nexplanation which will leave Mr. Lilly's reputation for common sense and\nfair dealing untouched. Can it be--I put this forward quite\ntentatively--that Mr. Lilly is the victim of a confusion, common enough\namong thoughtless people, and into which he has fallen unawares? Obviously,\nit is one thing to say that the logical methods of physical science are of\nuniversal applicability, and quite another to affirm that all subjects of\nthought lie within the province of physical science. I have often declared\nmy conviction that there is only one method by which intellectual truth can\nbe reached, whether the subject-matter of investigation belongs to the\nworld of physics or to the world of consciousness; and one of the arguments\nin favour of the use of physical science as an instrument of education\nwhich I have oftenest used is that, in my opinion, it exercises young minds\nin the appreciation of inductive evidence better than any other study. But\nwhile I repeat my conviction that the physical sciences probably furnish\nthe best and most easily appreciable illustrations of the one and\nindivisible mode of ascertaining truth by the use of reason, I beg leave to\nadd that I have never thought of suggesting that other branches of\nknowledge may not afford the same discipline; and assuredly I have never\ngiven the slightest ground for the attribution to me of the ridiculous\ncontention that there is nothing true outside the bounds of physical\nscience. Doubtless people who wanted to say something damaging, without too\nnice a regard to its truth or falsehood, have often enough misrepresented\n{218} my plain meaning. But Mr. Lilly is not one of these folks at whom one\nlooks and passes by, and I can but sorrowfully wonder at finding him in\nsuch company.\n\nSo much for the three theses which Mr. Lilly has nailed on to a page of\nthis Review. I think I have shown that the first is inaccurate, that the\nsecond is inaccurate, and that the third is inaccurate; and that these\nthree inaccurates constitute one prodigious, though I doubt not\nunintentional, misrepresentation. If Mr. Lilly and I were dialectic\ngladiators, fighting in the arena of the _Fortnightly_, under the eye of an\neditorial lanista, for the delectation of the public, my best tactics would\nnow be to leave the field of battle. For the question whether I do, or do\nnot, hold certain opinions is a matter of fact, with regard to which my\nevidence is likely to be regarded as conclusive--at least until such time\nas the telepathy of the unconscious is more generally recognised.\n\nHowever, some other assertions are made by Mr. Lilly which more or less\ninvolve matters of opinion whereof the rights and wrongs are less easily\nsettled, but in respect of which he seems to me to err quite as seriously\nas about the topics we have been hitherto discussing. And the importance of\nthese subjects leads me to venture upon saying something about them, even\nthough I am thereby compelled to leave the safe ground of personal\nknowledge.\n\nBefore launching the three torpedoes which have so sadly exploded on board\nhis own ship, Mr. Lilly says that with whatever \"rhetorical ornaments I may\n{219} gild my teaching,\" it is \"Materialism.\" Let me observe, in passing,\nthat rhetorical ornament is not in my way, and that gilding refined gold\nwould, to my mind, be less objectionable than varnishing the fair face of\ntruth with that pestilent cosmetic, rhetoric. If I believed that I had any\nclaim to the title of \"Materialist,\" as that term is understood in the\nlanguage of philosophy and not in that of abuse, I should not attempt to\nhide it by any sort of gilding. I have not found reason to care much for\nhard names in the course of the last thirty years, and I am too old to\ndevelop a new sensitiveness. But, to repeat what I have more than once\ntaken pains to say in the most unadorned of plain language, I repudiate, as\nphilosophical error, the doctrine of Materialism as I understand it, just\nas I repudiate the doctrine of Spiritualism as Mr. Lilly presents it, and\nmy reason for thus doing is, in both cases, the same; namely, that,\nwhatever their differences, Materialists and Spiritualists agree in making\nvery positive assertions about matters of which I am certain I know\nnothing, and about which I believe they are, in truth, just as ignorant.\nAnd further, that, even when their assertions are confined to topics which\nlie within the range of my faculties, they often appear to me to be in the\nwrong. And there is yet another reason for objecting to be identified with\neither of these sects; and that is that each is extremely fond of\nattributing to the other, by way of reproach, conclusions which are the\nproperty of neither, though they infallibly flow from the logical {220}\ndevelopment of the first principles of both. Surely a prudent man is not to\nbe reproached because he keeps clear of the squabbles of these\nphilosophical Bianchi and Neri, by refusing to have anything to do with\neither?\n\nI understand the main tenet of Materialism to be that there is nothing in\nthe universe but matter and force; and that all the phenomena of nature are\nexplicable by deduction from the properties assignable to these two\nprimitive factors. That great champion of Materialism whom Mr. Lilly\nappears to consider to be an authority in physical science, Dr. Buechner,\nembodies this article of faith on his title-page. _Kraft und Stoff_--force\nand matter--are paraded as the Alpha and Omega of existence. This I\napprehend is the fundamental article of the faith materialistic; and\nwhosoever does not hold it is condemned by the more zealous of the\npersuasion (as I have some reason to know) to the Inferno appointed for\nfools or hypocrites. But all this I heartily disbelieve; and at the risk of\nbeing charged with wearisome repetition of an old story, I will briefly\ngive my reasons for persisting in my infidelity. In the first place, as I\nhave already hinted, it seems to me pretty plain that there is a third\nthing in the universe, to wit, consciousness, which, in the hardness of my\nheart or head, I cannot see to be matter or force, or any conceivable\nmodification of either, however intimately the manifestations of the\nphenomena of consciousness may be connected with the phenomena known as\nmatter and force. In the second place, {221} the arguments used by\nDescartes and Berkeley to show that our certain knowledge does not extend\nbeyond our states of consciousness, appear to me to be as irrefragable now\nas they did when I first became acquainted with them some half century ago.\nAll the materialistic writers I know of who have tried to bite that file\nhave simply broken their teeth. But, if this is true, our one certainty is\nthe existence of the mental world, and that of _Kraft und Stoff_ falls into\nthe rank of, at best, a highly probable hypothesis.\n\nThirdly, when I was a mere boy, with a perverse tendency to think when I\nought to have been playing, my mind was greatly exercised by this\nformidable problem, What would become of things if they lost their\nqualities? As the qualities had no objective existence, and the thing\nwithout qualities was nothing, the solid world seemed whittled away--to my\ngreat horror. As I grew older, and learned to use the terms matter and\nforce, the boyish problem was revived, _mutato nomine_. On the one hand,\nthe notion of matter without force seemed to resolve the world into a set\nof geometrical ghosts, too dead even to jabber. On the other hand,\nBoscovich's hypothesis, by which matter was resolved into centres of force,\nwas very attractive. But when one tried to think it out, what in the world\nbecame of force considered as an objective entity? Force, even the most\nmaterialistic of philosophers will agree with the most idealistic, is\nnothing but a name for the cause of motion. And if, with Boscovich, I\nresolved {222} things into centres of force, then matter vanished\naltogether and left immaterial entities in its place. One might as well\nfrankly accept Idealism and have done with it.\n\nI must make a confession, even if it be humiliating. I have never been able\nto form the slightest conception of those \"forces\" which the Materialists\ntalk about, as if they had samples of them many years in bottle. They tell\nme that matter consists of atoms, which are separated by mere space devoid\nof contents; and that, through this void, radiate the attractive and\nrepulsive forces whereby the atoms affect one another. If anybody can\nclearly conceive the nature of these things which not only exist in\nnothingness, but pull and push there with great vigour, I envy him for the\npossession of an intellect of larger grasp, not only than mine, but than\nthat of Leibnitz or of Newton.[61] To me the \"chimaera, bombinans in vacuo\nquia comedit secundas intentiones\" of the schoolmen is a familiar and\ndomestic creature compared with such \"forces.\" Besides, by the hypothesis,\nthe forces are not matter; and thus all that is of any particular\nconsequence in the world turns out to be not matter on the Materialist's\nown showing. Let it not be supposed that I am casting {223} a doubt upon\nthe propriety of the employment of the terms \"atom\" and \"force,\" as they\nstand among the working hypotheses of physical science. As formulae which\ncan be applied, with perfect precision and great convenience, in the\ninterpretation of nature, their value is incalculable; but, as real\nentities, having an objective existence, an indivisible particle which\nnevertheless occupies space is surely inconceivable; and with respect to\nthe operation of that atom, where it is not, by the aid of a \"force\"\nresident in nothingness, I am as little able to imagine it as I fancy any\none else is.\n\nUnless and until anybody will resolve all these doubts and difficulties for\nme, I think I have a right to hold aloof from Materialism. As to\nSpiritualism, it lands me in even greater difficulties when I want to get\nchange for its notes-of-hand in the solid coin of reality. For the assumed\nsubstantial entity, spirit, which is supposed to underlie the phenomena of\nconsciousness, as matter underlies those of physical nature, leaves not\neven a geometrical ghost when these phenomena are abstracted. And, even if\nwe suppose the existence of such an entity apart from qualities--that is to\nsay, a bare existence--for mind; how does anybody know that it differs from\nthat other entity, apart from qualities, which is the supposed substratum\nof matter? Spiritualism is, after all, little better than Materialism\nturned upside down. And if I try to think of the \"spirit\" which a man, by\nthis hypothesis, carries about under his hat, as something devoid of\nrelation to space, and as something indivisible, even {224} in thought,\nwhile it is, at the same time, supposed to be in that place and to be\npossessed of half a dozen different faculties, I confess I get quite lost.\n\nAs I have said elsewhere, if I were forced to choose between Materialism\nand Idealism, I should elect for the latter; and I certainly would have\nnothing to do with the effete mythology of Spiritualism. But I am not aware\nthat I am under any compulsion to choose either the one or the other. I\nhave always entertained a strong suspicion that the sage who maintained\nthat man is the measure of the universe was sadly in the wrong; and age and\nexperience have not weakened that conviction. In following these lines of\nspeculation I am reminded of the quarter-deck walks of my youth. In taking\nthat form of exercise you may perambulate through all points of the compass\nwith perfect safety, so long as you keep within certain limits: forget\nthose limits, in your ardour, and mere smothering and spluttering, if not\nworse, await you. I stick by the deck and throw a life-buoy now and then to\nthe struggling folk who have gone overboard; and all I get for my humanity\nis the abuse of all whenever they leave off abusing one another.\n\nTolerably early in life I discovered that one of the unpardonable sins, in\nthe eyes of most people, is for a man to presume to go about unlabelled.\nThe world regards such a person as the police do an unmuzzled dog, not\nunder proper control. I could find no label that would suit me, so, in my\ndesire to range myself and be respectable, I invented one; and, as the\nchief thing I was sure of was that I did not know a great {225} many things\nthat the -ists and the -ites about me professed to be familiar with, I\ncalled myself an Agnostic. Surely no denomination could be more modest or\nmore appropriate; and I cannot imagine why I should be every now and then\nhaled out of my refuge and declared sometimes to be a Materialist,\nsometimes an Atheist, sometimes a Positivist; and sometimes, alas and\nalack, a cowardly or reactionary Obscurantist.\n\nI trust that I have, at last, made my case clear, and that henceforth I\nshall be allowed to rest in peace--at least, after a further explanation or\ntwo, which Mr. Lilly proves to me may be necessary. It has been seen that\nmy excellent critic has original ideas respecting the meaning of the words\n\"laboratory\" and \"chemical\"; and, as it appears to me, his definition of\n\"Materialist\" is quite as much peculiar to himself. For, unless I\nmisunderstand him, and I have taken pains not to do so, he puts me down as\na Materialist (over and above the grounds which I have shown to have no\nfoundation); firstly, because I have said that consciousness is a function\nof the brain; and, secondly, because I hold by determinism. With respect to\nthe first point, I am not aware that there is any one who doubts that, in\nthe proper physiological sense of the word function, consciousness, in\ncertain forms at any rate, is a cerebral function. In physiology we call\nfunction that effect, or series of effects, which results from the activity\nof an organ. Thus, it is the function of muscle to give rise to motion; and\nthe muscle gives rise to motion when the nerve which {226} supplies it is\nstimulated. If one of the nerve-bundles in a man's arm is laid bare and a\nstimulus is applied to certain of the nervous filaments, the result will be\nproduction of motion in that arm. If others are stimulated, the result will\nbe the production of the state of consciousness called pain. Now, if I\ntrace these last nerve-filaments, I find them to be ultimately connected\nwith part of the substance of the brain, just as the others turn out to be\nconnected with muscular substance. If the production of motion in the one\ncase is properly said to be the function of the muscular substance, why is\nthe production of a state of consciousness in the other case not to be\ncalled a function of the cerebral substance? Once upon a time, it is true,\nit was supposed that a certain \"animal spirit\" resided in muscle and was\nthe real active agent. But we have done with that wholly superfluous\nfiction so far as the muscular organs are concerned. Why are we to retain a\ncorresponding fiction for the nervous organs?\n\nIf it is replied that no physiologist, however spiritual his leanings,\ndreams of supposing that simple sensations require a \"spirit\" for their\nproduction, then I must point out that we are all agreed that consciousness\nis a function of matter, and that particular tenet must be given up as a\nmark of Materialism. Any further argument will turn upon the question, not\nwhether consciousness is a function of the brain, but whether all forms of\nconsciousness are so. Again, I hold it would be quite correct to say that\nmaterial changes are the causes of psychical {227} phenomena (and, as a\nconsequence, that the organs in which these changes take place have the\nproduction of such phenomena for their function), even if the\nspiritualistic hypothesis had any foundation. For nobody hesitates to say\nthat an event A is the cause of an event Z, even if there are as many\nintermediate terms, known and unknown, in the chain of causation as there\nare letters between A and Z. The man who pulls the trigger of a loaded\npistol placed close to another's head certainly is the cause of that\nother's death, though, in strictness, he \"causes\" nothing but the movement\nof the finger upon the trigger. And, in like manner, the molecular change\nwhich is brought about in a certain portion of the cerebral substance by\nthe stimulation of a remote part of the body would be properly said to be\nthe cause of the consequent feeling, whatever unknown terms were interposed\nbetween the physical agent and the actual psychical product. Therefore,\nunless Materialism has the monopoly of the right use of language, I see\nnothing materialistic in the phraseology which I have employed.\n\nThe only remaining justification which Mr. Lilly offers for dubbing me a\nMaterialist, _malgre moi_, arises out of a passage which he quotes, in\nwhich I say that the progress of science means the extension of the\nprovince of what we call matter and force, and the concomitant gradual\nbanishment from all regions of human thought of what we call spirit and\nspontaneity. I hold that opinion now, if anything, more firmly than I did\nwhen I gave utterance to it a score of {228} years ago, for it has been\njustified by subsequent events. But what that opinion has to do with\nMaterialism I fail to discover. In my judgment, it is consistent with the\nmost thorough-going Idealism, and the grounds of that judgment are really\nvery plain and simple.\n\nThe growth of science, not merely of physical science, but of all science,\nmeans the demonstration of order and natural causation among phenomena\nwhich had not previously been brought under those conceptions. Nobody who\nis acquainted with the progress of scientific thinking in every department\nof human knowledge, in the course of the last two centuries, will be\ndisposed to deny that immense provinces have been added to the realm of\nscience; or to doubt that the next two centuries will be witnesses of a\nvastly greater annexation. More particularly in the region of the\nphysiology of the nervous system, is it justifiable to conclude from the\nprogress that has been made in analysing the relations between material and\npsychical phenomena, that vast further advances will be made; and that,\nsooner or later, all the so-called spontaneous operations of the mind will\nhave, not only their relations to one another, but their relations to\nphysical phenomena, connected in natural series of causes and effects,\nstrictly defined. In other words, while, at present, we know only the\nnearer moiety of the chain of causes and effects, by which the phenomena we\ncall material give rise to those which we call mental; hereafter, we shall\nget to the further end of the series. {229}\n\nIn my innocence, I have been in the habit of supposing that this is merely\na statement of facts, and that the good Bishop Berkeley, if he were alive,\nwould find such facts fit into his system without the least difficulty.\nThat Mr. Lilly should play into the hands of his foes, by declaring that\nunmistakable facts make for them, is an exemplification of ways that are\ndark, quite unintelligible to me. Surely Mr. Lilly does not hold that the\ndisbelief in spontaneity--which term, if it has any meaning at all, means\nuncaused action--is a mark of the beast Materialism? If so, he must be\nprepared to tackle many of the Cartesians (if not Descartes himself),\nSpinoza and Leibnitz among the philosophers, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas,\nCalvin and his followers among theologians, as Materialists--and that\nsurely is a sufficient _reductio ad absurdum_ of such a classification.\n\nThe truth is, that in his zeal to paint \"Materialism,\" in large letters, on\neverything he dislikes, Mr. Lilly forgets a very important fact, which,\nhowever, must be patent to every one who has paid attention to the history\nof human thought; and that fact is, that every one of the speculative\ndifficulties which beset Kant's three problems, the existence of a Deity,\nthe freedom of the will, and immortality, existed ages before anything that\ncan be called physical science, and would continue to exist if modern\nphysical science were swept away. All that physical science has done has\nbeen to make, as it were, visible and tangible some difficulties that\nformerly were more hard of apprehension. Moreover, these difficulties {230}\nexist just as much on the hypothesis of Idealism as on that of Materialism.\n\nThe student of nature, who starts from the axiom of the universality of the\nlaw of causation, cannot refuse to admit an eternal existence; if he admits\nthe conservation of energy, he cannot deny the possibility of an eternal\nenergy; if he admits the existence of immaterial phenomena in the form of\nconsciousness, he must admit the possibility, at any rate, of an eternal\nseries of such phenomena; and, if his studies have not been barren of the\nbest fruit of the investigation of nature, he will have enough sense to see\nthat when Spinoza says, \"Per Deum intelligo ens absolute infinitum, hoc est\nsubstantiam constantem infinitis attributis,\" the God so conceived is one\nthat only a very great fool would deny, even in his heart. Physical science\nis as little Atheistic as it is Materialistic.\n\nSo with respect to immortality. As physical science states this problem, it\nseems to stand thus: \"Is there any means of knowing whether the series of\nstates of consciousness, which has been causally associated for threescore\nyears and ten with the arrangement and movements of innumerable millions of\nsuccessively different material molecules, can be continued, in like\nassociation, with some substance which has not the properties of matter and\nforce?\" As Kant said, on a like occasion, if anybody can answer that\nquestion, he is just the man I want to see. If he says that consciousness\ncannot exist, except in relation of cause and effect with certain organic\n{231} molecules, I must ask how he knows that; and if he says it can, I\nmust put the same question. And I am afraid that, like jesting Pilate, I\nshall not think it worth while (having but little time before me) to wait\nfor an answer.\n\nLastly, with respect to the old riddle of the freedom of the will. In the\nonly sense in which the word freedom is intelligible to me--that is to say,\nthe absence of any restraint upon doing what one likes within certain\nlimits--physical science certainly gives no more ground for doubting it\nthan the common sense of mankind does. And if physical science, in\nstrengthening our belief in the universality of causation and abolishing\nchance as an absurdity, leads to the conclusions of determinism, it does no\nmore than follow the track of consistent and logical thinkers in philosophy\nand in theology, before it existed or was thought of. Whoever accepts the\nuniversality of the law of causation as a dogma of philosophy, denies the\nexistence of uncaused phenomena. And the essence of that which is\nimproperly called the freewill doctrine is that occasionally, at any rate,\nhuman volition is self-caused, that is to say, not caused at all; for to\ncause oneself one must have anteceded oneself--which is, to say the least\nof it, difficult to imagine.\n\nWhoever accepts the existence of an omniscient Deity as a dogma of\ntheology, affirms that the order of things is fixed from eternity to\neternity; for the fore-knowledge of an occurrence means that the occurrence\nwill certainly happen; and the certainty {232} of an event happening is\nwhat is meant by its being fixed or fated.[62]\n\nWhoever asserts the existence of an omnipotent Deity, that he made and\nsustains all things, and is the _causa causarum_, cannot, without a\ncontradiction in terms, assert that there is any cause independent of him;\nand it is a mere subterfuge to assert that the cause of all things can\n\"permit\" one of these things to be an independent cause.\n\n{233}\n\nWhoever asserts the combination of omniscience and omnipotence as\nattributes of the Deity, does implicitly assert predestination. For he who\nknowingly makes a thing and places it in circumstances the operation of\nwhich on that thing he is perfectly acquainted with, does predestine that\nthing to whatever fate may befall it.\n\nThus, to come, at last, to the really important part of all this\ndiscussion, if the belief in a God is essential to morality, physical\nscience offers no obstacle thereto; if the belief in immortality is\nessential to morality, physical science has no more to say against the\nprobability of that doctrine than the most ordinary experience has, and it\neffectually closes the mouths of those who pretend to refute it by\nobjections deduced from merely physical data. Finally, if the belief in the\nuncausedness of volition is essential to morality, the student of physical\nscience has no more to say against that absurdity than the logical\nphilosopher or theologian. Physical science, I repeat, did not invent\ndeterminism, and the deterministic doctrine would stand on just as firm a\nfoundation as it does if there were no physical science. Let any one who\ndoubts this read Jonathan Edwards, whose demonstrations are derived wholly\nfrom philosophy and theology.\n\nThus, when Mr. Lilly, like another Solomon Eagle, goes about proclaiming\n\"Woe to this wicked city,\" and denouncing physical science as the evil\ngenius of modern days--mother of materialism, and fatalism, and all sorts\nof other condemnable isms--I {234} venture to beg him to lay the blame on\nthe right shoulders; or, at least, to put in the dock, along with Science,\nthose sinful sisters of hers, Philosophy and Theology, who, being so much\nolder, should have known better than the poor Cinderella of the schools and\nuniversities over which they have so long dominated. No doubt modern\nsociety is diseased enough; but then it does not differ from older\ncivilisations in that respect. Societies of men are fermenting masses, and\nas beer has what the Germans call \"Oberhefe\" and \"Unterhefe,\" so every\nsociety that has existed has had its scum at the top and its dregs at the\nbottom; but I doubt if any of the \"ages of faith\" had less scum or less\ndregs, or even showed a proportionally greater quantity of sound wholesome\nstuff in the vat. I think it would puzzle Mr. Lilly, or any one else, to\nadduce convincing evidence that, at any period of the world's history,\nthere was a more widespread sense of social duty, or a greater sense of\njustice, or of the obligation of mutual help, than in this England of ours.\nAh! but, says Mr. Lilly, these are all products of our Christian\ninheritance; when Christian dogmas vanish virtue will disappear too, and\nthe ancestral ape and tiger will have full play. But there are a good many\npeople who think it obvious that Christianity also inherited a good deal\nfrom Paganism and from Judaism; and that, if the Stoics and the Jews\nrevoked their bequest, the moral property of Christianity would realise\nvery little. And, if morality has survived the stripping off of several\nsets of clothes which have been found to fit badly, why {235} should it not\nbe able to get on very well in the light and handy garments which Science\nis ready to provide?\n\nBut this by the way. If the diseases of society consist in the weakness of\nits faith in the existence of the God of the theologians, in a future\nstate, and in uncaused volitions, the indication, as the doctors say, is to\nsuppress Theology and Philosophy, whose bickerings about things of which\nthey know nothing have been the prime cause and continual sustenance of\nthat evil scepticism which is the Nemesis of meddling with the unknowable.\n\nCinderella is modestly conscious of her ignorance of these high matters.\nShe lights the fire, sweeps the house, and provides the dinner; and is\nrewarded by being told that she is a base creature, devoted to low and\nmaterial interests. But in her garret she has fairy visions out of the ken\nof the pair of shrews who are quarrelling downstairs. She sees the order\nwhich pervades the seeming disorder of the world; the great drama of\nevolution, with its full share of pity and terror, but also with abundant\ngoodness and beauty, unrolls itself before her eyes; and she learns, in her\nheart of hearts, the lesson, that the foundation of morality is to have\ndone, once and for all, with lying; to give up pretending to believe that\nfor which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions\nabout things beyond the possibilities of knowledge.\n\nShe knows that the safety of morality lies neither in the adoption of this\nor that philosophical {236} speculation, or this or that theological creed,\nbut in a real and living belief in that fixed order of nature which sends\nsocial disorganisation upon the track of immorality, as surely as it sends\nphysical disease after physical trespasses. And of that firm and lively\nfaith it is her high mission to be the priestess.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{237}\n\nVI\n\nSCIENTIFIC AND PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC REALISM\n\nNext to undue precipitation in anticipating the results of pending\ninvestigations, the intellectual sin which is commonest and most hurtful to\nthose who devote themselves to the increase of knowledge is the omission to\nprofit by the experience of their predecessors recorded in the history of\nscience and philosophy. It is true that, at the present day, there is more\nexcuse than at any former time for such neglect. No small labour is needed\nto raise oneself to the level of the acquisitions already made; and able\nmen, who have achieved thus much, know that, if they devote themselves body\nand soul to the increase of their store, and avoid looking back, with as\nmuch care as if the injunction laid on Lot and his family were binding upon\nthem, such devotion is sure to be richly repaid by the joys of the\ndiscoverer and the solace of fame, if not by rewards of a less elevated\ncharacter.\n\nSo, following the advice of Francis Bacon, we refuse _inter mortuos quaerere\nvivum_; we leave the past to bury its dead, and ignore our intellectual\nancestry. Nor are we content with that. We follow the evil example set us,\nnot only by Bacon but by {238} almost all the men of the Renaissance, in\npouring scorn upon the work of our immediate spiritual forefathers, the\nschoolmen of the middle ages. It is accepted as a truth which is\nindisputable, that, for seven or eight centuries, a long succession of able\nmen--some of them of transcendent acuteness and encyclopaedic\nknowledge--devoted laborious lives to the grave discussion of mere\nfrivolities and the arduous pursuit of intellectual will-o'-the-wisps. To\nsay nothing of a little modesty, a little impartial pondering over personal\nexperience might suggest a doubt as to the adequacy of this short and easy\nmethod of dealing with a large chapter of the history of the human mind.\nEven an acquaintance with popular literature which had extended so far as\nto include that part of the contributions of Sam Slick which contains his\nweighty aphorism that \"there is a great deal of human nature in all\nmankind,\" might raise a doubt whether, after all, the men of that epoch,\nwho, take them all round, were endowed with wisdom and folly in much the\nsame proportion as ourselves, were likely to display nothing better than\nthe qualities of energetic idiots, when they devoted their faculties to the\nelucidation of problems which were to them, and indeed are to us, the most\nserious which life has to offer. Speaking for myself, the longer I live the\nmore I am disposed to think that there is much less either of pure folly,\nor of pure wickedness, in the world than is commonly supposed. It may be\ndoubted if any sane man ever said to himself, \"Evil be thou my good,\" and I\nhave never yet had the good fortune to meet with a perfect {239} fool. When\nI have brought to the inquiry the patience and long-suffering which become\na scientific investigator, the most promising specimens have turned out to\nhave a good deal to say for themselves from their own point of view. And,\nsometimes, calm reflection has taught the humiliating lesson, that their\npoint of view was not so different from my own as I had fondly imagined.\nComprehension is more than halfway to sympathy, here as elsewhere.\n\nIf we turn our attention to scholastic philosophy in the frame of mind\nsuggested by these prefatory remarks, it assumes a very different character\nfrom that which it bears in general estimation. No doubt it is surrounded\nby a dense thicket of thorny logomachies and obscured by the dust-clouds of\na barbarous and perplexing terminology. But suppose that, undeterred by\nmuch grime and by many scratches, the explorer has toiled through this\njungle, he comes to an open country which is amazingly like his dear native\nland. The hills which he has to climb, the ravines he has to avoid, look\nvery much the same; there is the same infinite space above, and the same\nabyss of the unknown below; the means of travelling are the same, and the\ngoal is the same.\n\nThat goal for the schoolmen, as for us, is the settlement of the question\nhow far the universe is the manifestation of a rational order; in other\nwords, how far logical deduction from indisputable premisses will account\nfor that which has happened and does happen. That was the object of\nscholasticism, and, so far as I am aware, the object of modern science may\nbe {240} expressed in the same terms. In pursuit of this end, modern\nscience takes into account all the phenomena of the universe which are\nbrought to our knowledge by observation or by experiment. It admits that\nthere are two worlds to be considered, the one physical and the other\npsychical; and that though there is a most intimate relation and\ninterconnection between the two, the bridge from one to the other has yet\nto be found; that their phenomena run, not in one series, but along two\nparallel lines.\n\nTo the schoolmen the duality of the universe appeared under a different\naspect. How this came about will not be intelligible unless we clearly\napprehend the fact that they did really believe in dogmatic Christianity as\nit was formulated by the Roman Church. They did not give a mere dull assent\nto anything the Church told them on Sundays, and ignore her teachings for\nthe rest of the week; but they lived and moved and had their being in that\nsupersensible theological world which was created, or rather grew up,\nduring the first four centuries of our reckoning, and which occupied their\nthoughts far more than the sensible world in which their earthly lot was\ncast.\n\nFor the most part, we learn history from the colourless compendiums or\npartisan briefs of mere scholars, who have too little acquaintance with\npractical life, and too little insight into speculative problems, to\nunderstand that about which they write. In historical science, as in all\nsciences which have to do with concrete phenomena, laboratory practice is\nindispensable; and the laboratory practice of historical science is {241}\nafforded, on the one hand, by active social and political life, and, on the\nother, by the study of those tendencies and operations of the mind which\nembody themselves in philosophical and theological systems. Thucydides and\nTacitus, and, to come nearer our own time, Hume and Grote, were men of\naffairs, and had acquired, by direct contact with social and political\nhistory in the making, the secret of understanding how such history is\nmade. Our notions of the intellectual history of the middle ages are,\nunfortunately, too often derived from writers who have never seriously\ngrappled with philosophical and theological problems: and hence that\nstrange myth of a millennium of moonshine to which I have adverted.\n\nHowever, no very profound study of the works of contemporary writers who,\nwithout devoting themselves specially to theology or philosophy, were\nlearned and enlightened--such men, for example, as Eginhard or Dante--is\nnecessary to convince oneself that, for them, the world of the theologian\nwas an ever-present and awful reality. From the centre of that world, the\nDivine Trinity, surrounded by a hierarchy of angels and saints,\ncontemplated and governed the insignificant sensible world in which the\ninferior spirits of men, burdened with the debasement of their material\nembodiment and continually solicited to their perdition by a no less\nnumerous and almost as powerful hierarchy of devils, were constantly\nstruggling on the edge of the pit of everlasting damnation.[63]\n\n{242}\n\nThe men of the middle ages believed that through the Scriptures, the\ntraditions of the Fathers, and the authority of the Church, they were in\npossession of far more, and more trustworthy, information with respect to\nthe nature and order of things in the theological world than they had in\nregard to the nature and order of things in the sensible world. And, if the\ntwo sources of information came into conflict, so much the worse for the\nsensible world, which, after all, was more or less under the dominion of\nSatan. Let us suppose that a telescope powerful enough to show us what is\ngoing on in the nebula of the sword of Orion, should reveal a world in\nwhich stones fell upwards, parallel lines met, and the fourth dimension of\nspace was quite obvious. Men of science would have only two {243}\nalternatives before them. Either the terrestrial and the nebular facts must\nbe brought into harmony by such feats of subtle sophistry as the human mind\nis always capable of performing when driven into a corner; or science must\nthrow down its arms in despair, and commit suicide, either by the admission\nthat the universe is, after all, irrational, inasmuch as that which is\ntruth in one corner of it is absurdity in another, or by a declaration of\nincompetency.\n\nIn the middle ages, the labours of those great men who endeavoured to\nreconcile the system of thought which started from the data of pure reason,\nwith that which started from the data of Roman theology, produced the\nsystem of thought which is known as scholastic philosophy; the alternative\nof surrender and suicide is exemplified by Avicenna and his followers when\nthey declared that that which is true in theology may be false in\nphilosophy, and _vice versa_; and by Sanchez in his famous defence of the\nthesis \"_Quod nil scitur_.\"\n\nTo those who deny the validity of one of the primary assumptions of the\ndisputants--who decline, on the ground of the utter insufficiency of the\nevidence, to put faith in the reality of that other world, the geography\nand the inhabitants of which are so confidently described in the\nso-called[64] Christianity of Catholicism--the long and bitter contest,\nwhich {244} engaged the best intellects for so many centuries, may seem a\nterrible illustration of the wasteful way in which the struggle for\nexistence is carried on in the world of thought, no less than in that of\nmatter. But there is a more cheerful mode of looking at the history of\nscholasticism. It ground and sharpened the dialectic implements of our race\nas perhaps nothing but discussions, in the result of which men thought\ntheir eternal no less than their temporal interests were at stake, could\nhave done. When a logical blunder may ensure combustion, not only in the\nnext world but in this, the construction of syllogisms acquires a peculiar\ninterest. Moreover, the schools kept the thinking faculty alive and active,\nwhen the disturbed state of civil life, the mephitic atmosphere engendered\nby the dominant ecclesiasticism, and the almost total neglect of natural\nknowledge, might well have stifled it. And, finally, it should be\nremembered that scholasticism really did thresh out pretty effectually\ncertain problems which have presented themselves to mankind ever since they\nbegan to think, and which, I suppose, will present themselves so long as\nthey continue to think. Consider, for example, the controversy of the\nRealists and the Nominalists, which was carried on with varying fortunes,\nand under various names, from the time of Scotus Erigena to the end of the\nscholastic period. Has it now a merely antiquarian interest? Has\nNominalism, in any of its modifications, so completely won the day that\nRealism may be regarded as dead and buried without hope of resurrection?\n{245} Many people seem to think so, but it appears to me that, without\ntaking Catholic philosophy into consideration, one has not to look about\nfar to find evidence that Realism is still to the fore, and indeed\nextremely lively.[65]\n\n\n\nThe other day I happened to meet with a report of a sermon recently\npreached in St. Paul's Cathedral. From internal evidence I am inclined to\nthink that the report is substantially correct. But as I have not the\nslightest intention of finding fault with the eminent theologian and\neloquent preacher to whom the discourse is attributed, for employment of\nscientific language in a manner for which he could find only too many\nscientific precedents, the accuracy of the report in detail is not to the\npurpose. I may safely take it as the embodiment of views which are thought\nto be quite in accordance with science by many excellent, instructed, and\nintelligent people.\n\n    The preacher further contended that it was yet more difficult to\n    realise that our earthly home would become the scene of a vast physical\n    catastrophe. Imagination recoils from the idea that the {246} course of\n    nature--the phrase helps to disguise the truth--so unvarying and\n    regular, the ordered sequence of movement and life, should suddenly\n    cease. Imagination looks more reasonable when it assumes the air of\n    scientific reason. Physical law, it says, will prevent the occurrence\n    of catastrophes only anticipated by an apostle in an unscientific age.\n    Might not there, however, be a suspension of a lower law by the\n    intervention of a higher? Thus every time we lifted our arms we defied\n    the laws of gravitation, and in railways and steamboats powerful laws\n    were held in check by others. The flood and the destruction of Sodom\n    and Gomorrah were brought about by the operations of existing laws, and\n    may it not be that in His illimitable universe there are more important\n    laws than those which surround our puny life--moral and not merely\n    physical forces? Is it inconceivable that the day will come when these\n    royal and ultimate laws shall wreck the natural order of things which\n    seems so stable and so fair? Earthquakes were not things of remote\n    antiquity, as an island off Italy, the Eastern Archipelago, Greece, and\n    Chicago bore witness.... In presence of a great earthquake men feel how\n    powerless they are, and their very knowledge adds to their weakness.\n    The end of human probation, the final dissolution of organised society,\n    and the destruction of man's home on the surface of the globe, were\n    none of them violently contrary to our present experience, but only the\n    extension of present facts. The presentiment of death was common; there\n    were felt to be many things which threatened the existence of society;\n    and as our globe was a ball of fire, at any moment the pent-up forces\n    which surge and boil beneath our feet might be poured out (_Pall Mall\n    Gazette_, December 6, 1886).\n\nThe preacher appears to entertain the notion that the occurrence of a\n\"catastrophe\"[66] involves a breach of the present order of nature--that it\nis an event incompatible with the physical laws which at present {247}\nobtain. He seems to be of opinion that \"scientific reason\" lends its\nauthority to the imaginative supposition that physical law will prevent the\noccurrence of the \"catastrophes\" anticipated by an unscientific apostle.\n\nScientific reason, like Homer, sometimes nods; but I am not aware that it\nhas ever dreamed dreams of this sort. The fundamental axiom of scientific\nthought is that there is not, never has been, and never will be, any\ndisorder in nature. The admission of the occurrence of any event which was\nnot the logical consequence of the immediately antecedent events, according\nto these definite, ascertained, or unascertained rules which we call the\n\"laws of nature,\" would be an act of self-destruction on the part of\nscience.\n\n\"Catastrophe\" is a relative conception. For ourselves it means an event\nwhich brings about very terrible consequences to man, or impresses his mind\nby its magnitude relatively to him. But events which are quite in the\nnatural order of things to us, may be frightful catastrophes to other\nsentient beings. Surely no interruption of the order of nature is involved\nif, in the course of descending through an Alpine pine-wood, I jump upon an\nanthill and in a moment wreck a whole city and destroy a hundred thousand\nof its inhabitants. To the ants the catastrophe is worse than the\nearthquake of Lisbon. To me it is the natural and necessary consequence of\nthe laws of matter in motion. A redistribution of energy has taken place,\nwhich is perfectly in accordance with natural order, however unpleasant its\neffects may be to the ants. {248}\n\nImagination, inspired by scientific reason, and not merely assuming the\nairs thereof, as it unfortunately too often does in the pulpit, so far from\nhaving any right to repudiate catastrophes and deny the possibility of the\ncessation of motion and life, easily finds justification for the exactly\ncontrary course. Kant in his famous _Theory of the Heavens_ declares the\nend of the world and its reduction to a formless condition to be a\nnecessary consequence of the causes to which it owes its origin and\ncontinuance. And, as to catastrophes of prodigious magnitude and frequent\noccurrence, they were the favourite _asylum ignorantiae_ of geologists, not\na quarter of a century ago. If modern geology is becoming more and more\ndisinclined to call in catastrophes to its aid, it is not because of any _a\npriori_ difficulty in reconciling the occurrence of such events with the\nuniversality of order, but because the _a posteriori_ evidence of the\noccurrence of events of this character in past times has more or less\ncompletely broken down.\n\nIt is, to say the least, highly probable that this earth is a mass of\nextremely hot matter, invested by a cooled crust, through which the hot\ninterior still continues to cool, though with extreme slowness. It is no\nless probable that the faults and dislocations, the foldings and fractures,\neverywhere visible in the stratified crust, its large and slow movements\nthrough miles of elevation and depression, and its small and rapid\nmovements which give rise to the innumerable perceived and unperceived\nearthquakes which are constantly occurring, are due to the {249} shrinkage\nof the crust on its cooling and contracting nucleus.\n\nWithout going beyond the range of fair scientific analogy, conditions are\neasily conceivable which should render the loss of heat far more rapid than\nit is at present; and such an occurrence would be just as much in\naccordance with ascertained laws of nature as the more rapid cooling of a\nredhot bar, when it is thrust into cold water, than when it remains in the\nair. But much more rapid cooling might entail a shifting and rearrangement\nof the parts of the crust of the earth on a scale of unprecedented\nmagnitude, and bring about \"catastrophes\" to which the earthquake of Lisbon\nis but a trifle. It is conceivable that man and his works and all the\nhigher forms of animal life should be utterly destroyed; that mountain\nregions should be converted into ocean depths and the floor of oceans\nraised into mountains; and the earth become a scene of horror which even\nthe lurid fancy of the writer of the Apocalypse would fail to portray. And\nyet, to the eye of science, there would be no more disorder here than in\nthe Sabbatical peace of a summer sea. Not a link in the chain of natural\ncauses and effects would be broken, nowhere would there be the slightest\nindication of the \"suspension of a lower law by a higher.\" If a sober\nscientific thinker is inclined to put little faith in the wild\nvaticinations of universal ruin which, in a less saintly person than the\nseer of Patmos, might seem to be dictated by the fury of a revengeful\nfanatic rather than by the spirit of the teacher who bid men love {250}\ntheir enemies, it is not on the ground that they contradict scientific\nprinciples; but because the evidence of their scientific value does not\nfulfil the conditions on which weight is attached to evidence. The\nimagination which supposes that it does, simply does not \"assume the air of\nscientific reason.\"\n\nI repeat that, if imagination is used within the limits laid down by\nscience, disorder is unimaginable. If a being endowed with perfect\nintellectual and aesthetic faculties, but devoid of the capacity for\nsuffering pain, either physical or moral, were to devote his utmost powers\nto the investigation of nature, the universe would seem to him to be a sort\nof kaleidoscope, in which, at every successive moment of time, a new\narrangement of parts of exquisite beauty and symmetry would present itself;\nand each of them would show itself to be the logical consequence of the\npreceding arrangement, under the conditions which we call the laws of\nnature. Such a spectator might well be filled with that _Amor\nintellectualis Dei_, the beatific vision of the _vita contemplativa_, which\nsome of the greatest thinkers of all ages, Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza,\nhave regarded as the only conceivable eternal felicity; and the vision of\nillimitable suffering, as if sensitive beings were unregarded animalcules\nwhich had got between the bits of glass of the kaleidoscope, which mars the\nprospect to us poor mortals, in no wise alters the fact that order is lord\nof all, and disorder only a name for that part of the order which gives us\npain.\n\nThe other fallacious employment of the names of {251} scientific\nconceptions which pervades the preacher's utterance, brings me back to the\nproper topic of the present paper. It is the use of the word \"law\" as if it\ndenoted a thing--as if a \"law of nature,\" as science understands it, were a\nbeing endowed with certain powers, in virtue of which the phenomena\nexpressed by that law are brought about. The preacher asks, \"Might not\nthere be a suspension of a lower law by the intervention of a higher?\" He\ntells us that every time we lift our arms we defy the law of gravitation.\nHe asks whether some day certain \"royal and ultimate laws\" may not come and\n\"wreck\" those laws which are at present, it would appear, acting as\nnature's police. It is evident, from these expressions, that \"laws,\" in the\nmind of the preacher, are entities having an objective existence in a\ngraduated hierarchy. And it would appear that the \"royal laws\" are by no\nmeans to be regarded as constitutional royalties: at any moment, they may,\nlike Eastern despots, descend in wrath among the middle-class and plebeian\nlaws, which have hitherto done the drudgery of the world's work, and, to\nuse phraseology not unknown in our seats of learning--\"make hay\" of their\nbelongings. Or perhaps a still more familiar analogy has suggested this\nsingular theory; and it is thought that high laws may \"suspend\" low laws,\nas a bishop may suspend a curate.\n\nFar be it from me to controvert these views, if any one likes to hold them.\nAll I wish to remark is that such a conception of the nature of \"laws\" has\nnothing to do with modern science. It is scholastic {252} realism--realism\nas intense and unmitigated as that of Scotus Erigena a thousand years ago.\nThe essence of such realism is that it maintains the objective existence of\nuniversals, or, as we call them nowadays, general propositions. It affirms,\nfor example, that \"man\" is a real thing, apart from individual men, having\nits existence, not in the sensible, but in the intelligible world, and\nclothing itself with the accidents of sense to make the Jack and Tom and\nHarry whom we know. Strange as such a notion may appear to modern\nscientific thought, it really pervades ordinary language. There are few\npeople who would, at once, hesitate to admit that colour, for example,\nexists apart from the mind which conceives the idea of colour. They hold it\nto be something which resides in the coloured object; and so far they are\nas much Realists as if they had sat at Plato's feet. Reflection on the\nfacts of the case must, I imagine, convince every one that \"colour\" is--not\na mere name, which was the extreme Nominalist position--but a name for that\ngroup of states of feeling which we call blue, red, yellow, and so on, and\nwhich we believe to be caused by luminiferous vibrations which have not the\nslightest resemblance to colour; while these again are set afoot by states\nof the body to which we ascribe colour, but which are equally devoid of\nlikeness to colour.\n\nIn the same way, a law of nature, in the scientific sense, is the product\nof a mental operation upon the facts of nature which come under our\nobservation, and has no more existence outside the mind than {253} colour\nhas. The law of gravitation is a statement of the manner in which\nexperience shows that bodies, which are free to move, do, in fact, move\ntowards one another. But the other facts of observation, that bodies are\nnot always moving in this fashion, and sometimes move in a contrary\ndirection, are implied in the words \"free to move.\" If it is a law of\nnature that bodies tend to move towards one another in a certain way; it is\nanother and no less true law of nature that, if bodies are not free to move\nas they tend to do, either in consequence of an obstacle, or of a contrary\nimpulse from some other source of energy than that to which we give the\nname of gravitation, they either stop still, or go another way.\n\nScientifically speaking, it is the acme of absurdity to talk of a man\ndefying the law of gravitation when he lifts his arm. The general store of\nenergy in the universe working through terrestrial matter is doubtless\ntending to bring the man's arm down; but the particular fraction of that\nenergy which is working through certain of his nervous and muscular organs\nis tending to drive it up, and more energy being expended on the arm in the\nupward than in the downward direction, the arm goes up accordingly. But the\nlaw of gravitation is no more defied in this case than when a grocer throws\nso much sugar into the empty pan of his scales that the one which contains\nthe weight kicks the beam.\n\nThe tenacity of the wonderful fallacy that the laws of nature are agents,\ninstead of being, as they really are, a mere record of experience, upon\nwhich we {254} base our interpretations of that which does happen, and our\nanticipation of that which will happen, is an interesting psychological\nfact; and would be unintelligible if the tendency of the human mind towards\nrealism were less strong.\n\nEven at the present day, and in the writings of men who would at once\nrepudiate scholastic realism in any form, \"law\" is often inadvertently\nemployed in the sense of cause, just as, in common life, a man will say\nthat he is compelled by the law to do so and so, when, in point of fact,\nall he means is that the law orders him to do it, and tells him what will\nhappen if he does not do it. We commonly hear of bodies falling to the\nground by reason of the law of gravitation, whereas that law is simply the\nrecord of the fact that, according to all experience, they have so fallen\n(when free to move), and of the grounds of a reasonable expectation that\nthey will so fall. If it should be worth anybody's while to seek for\nexamples of such misuse of language on my own part, I am not at all sure he\nmight not succeed, though I have usually been on my guard against such\nlooseness of expression. If I am guilty, I do penance beforehand, and only\nhope that I may thereby deter others from committing the like fault. And I\nventure on this personal observation by way of showing that I have no wish\nto bear hardly on the preacher for falling into an error for which he might\nfind good precedents. But it is one of those errors which, in the case of a\nperson engaged in scientific pursuits, do little harm, because it is\ncorrected as soon as its consequences {255} become obvious; while those who\nknow physical science only by name are, as has been seen, easily led to\nbuild a mighty fabric of unrealities on this fundamental fallacy. In fact,\nthe habitual use of the word \"law,\" in the sense of an active thing, is\nalmost a mark of pseudo-science; it characterises the writings of those who\nhave appropriated the forms of science without knowing anything of its\nsubstance.\n\nThere are two classes of these people: those who are ready to believe in\nany miracle so long as it is guaranteed by ecclesiastical authority; and\nthose who are ready to believe in any miracle so long as it has some\ndifferent guarantee. The believers in what are ordinarily called\nmiracles--those who accept the miraculous narratives which they are taught\nto think are essential elements of religious doctrine--are in the one\ncategory; the spirit-rappers, table-turners, and all the other devotees of\nthe occult sciences of our day are in the other: and, if they disagree in\nmost things they agree in this, namely, that they ascribe to science a\ndictum that is not scientific; and that they endeavour to upset the dictum\nthus foisted on science by a realistic argument which is equally\nunscientific.\n\nIt is asserted, for example, that, on a particular occasion, water was\nturned into wine; and, on the other hand, it is asserted that a man or a\nwoman \"levitated\" to the ceiling, floated about there, and finally sailed\nout by the window. And it is assumed that the pardonable scepticism, with\nwhich most scientific men receive these statements, is due to the {256}\nfact that they feel themselves justified in denying the possibility of any\nsuch metamorphosis of water or of any such levitation, because such events\nare contrary to the laws of nature. So the question of the preacher is\ntriumphantly put: How do you know that there are not \"higher\" laws of\nnature than your chemical and physical laws, and that these higher laws may\nnot intervene and \"wreck\" the latter?\n\nThe plain answer to this question is, Why should anybody be called upon to\nsay how he knows that which he does not know? You are assuming that laws\nare agents--efficient causes of that which happens--and that one law can\ninterfere with another. To us, that assumption is as nonsensical as if you\nwere to talk of a proposition of Euclid being the cause of the diagram\nwhich illustrates it, or of the integral calculus interfering with the rule\nof three. Your question really implies that we pretend to complete\nknowledge not only of all past and present phenomena, but of all that are\npossible in the future, and we leave all that sort of thing to the adepts\nof esoteric Buddhism. Our pretensions are infinitely more modest. We have\nsucceeded in finding out the rules of action of a little bit of the\nuniverse; we call these rules \"laws of nature,\" not because anybody knows\nwhether they bind nature or not, but because we find it is obligatory on us\nto take them into account, both as actors under nature, and as interpreters\nof nature. We have any quantity of genuine miracles of our own, and if you\nwill furnish us with as good evidence of your miracles as we have {257} of\nours, we shall be quite happy to accept them and to amend our expression of\nthe laws of nature in accordance with the new facts.\n\nAs to the particular cases adduced, we are so perfectly fair-minded as to\nbe willing to help your case as far as we can. You are quite mistaken in\nsupposing that anybody who is acquainted with the possibilities of physical\nscience will undertake categorically to deny that water may be turned into\nwine. Many very competent judges are already inclined to think that the\nbodies, which we have hitherto called elementary, are really composite\narrangements of the particles of a uniform primitive matter. Supposing that\nview to be correct, there would be no more theoretical difficulty about\nturning water into alcohol, ethereal and colouring matters, than there is,\nat this present moment, any practical difficulty in working other such\nmiracles; as when we turn sugar into alcohol, carbonic acid, glycerine, and\nsuccinic acid; or transmute gas-refuse into perfumes rarer than musk and\ndyes richer than Tyrian purple. If the so-called \"elements,\" oxygen and\nhydrogen, which compose water, are aggregates of the same ultimate\nparticles, or physical units, as those which enter into the structure of\nthe so-called element \"carbon,\" it is obvious that alcohol and other\nsubstances, composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, may be produced by a\nrearrangement of some of the units of oxygen and hydrogen into the\n\"element\" carbon, and their synthesis with the rest of the oxygen and\nhydrogen. {258}\n\nTheoretically, therefore, we can have no sort of objection to your miracle.\nAnd our reply to the levitators is just the same. Why should not your\nfriend \"levitate\"? Fish are said to rise and sink in the water by altering\nthe volume of an internal air-receptacle; and there may be many ways\nscience, as yet, knows nothing of, by which we, who live at the bottom of\nan ocean of air, may do the same thing. Dialectic gas and wind appear to be\nby no means wanting among you, and why should not long practice in\npneumatic philosophy have resulted in the internal generation of something\na thousand times rarer than hydrogen, by which, in accordance with the most\nordinary natural laws, you would not only rise to the ceiling and float\nthere in quasi-angelic posture, but perhaps, as one of your feminine adepts\nis said to have done, flit swifter than train or telegram to \"still-vexed\nBermoothes,\" and twit Ariel, if he happens to be there, for a sluggard? We\nhave not the presumption to deny the possibility of anything you affirm;\nonly, as our brethren are particular about evidence, do give us as much to\ngo upon as may save us from being roared down by their inextinguishable\nlaughter.\n\nEnough of the realism which clings about \"laws.\" There are plenty of other\nexemplifications of its vitality in modern science, but I will cite only\none of them.\n\nThis is the conception of \"vital force\" which comes straight from the\nphilosophy of Aristotle. It is a fundamental proposition of that philosophy\nthat {259} a natural object is composed of two constituents--the one its\nmatter, conceived as inert or even, to a certain extent, opposed to orderly\nand purposive motion; the other its form, conceived as a quasi-spiritual\nsomething, containing or conditioning the actual activities of the body and\nthe potentiality of its possible activities.\n\nI am disposed to think that the prominence of this conception in\nAristotle's theory of things arose from the circumstance that he was, to\nbegin with and throughout his life, devoted to biological studies. In fact\nit is a notion which must force itself upon the mind of any one who studies\nbiological phenomena, without reference to general physics, as they now\nstand. Everybody who observes the obvious phenomena of the development of a\nseed into a tree, or of an egg into an animal, will note that a relatively\nformless mass of matter gradually grows, takes a definite shape and\nstructure, and, finally, begins to perform actions which contribute towards\na certain end, namely, the maintenance of the individual in the first\nplace, and of the species in the second. Starting from the axiom that every\nevent has a cause, we have here the _causa finalis_ manifested in the last\nset of phenomena, the _causa materialis_ and _formalis_ in the first, while\nthe existence of a _causa efficiens_ within the seed or egg and its\nproduct, is a corollary from the phenomena of growth and metamorphosis,\nwhich proceed in unbroken succession and make up the life of the animal or\nplant.\n\nThus, at starting, the egg or seed is matter having {260} a \"form\" like all\nother material bodies. But this form has the peculiarity, in\ncontradistinction to lower substantial \"forms,\" that it is a power which\nconstantly works towards an end by means of living organisation.\n\nSo far as I know, Leibnitz is the only philosopher (at the same time a man\nof science, in the modern sense, of the first rank) who has noted that the\nmodern conception of Force, as a sort of atmosphere enveloping the\nparticles of bodies, and having potential or actual activity, is simply a\nnew name for the Aristotelian Form.[67] In modern biology, up till within\nquite recent times, the Aristotelian conception held undisputed sway;\nliving matter was endowed with \"vital force,\" and that accounted for\neverything. Whosoever was not satisfied with that explanation was treated\nto that very \"plain argument\"--\"confound you eternally\"--wherewith Lord\nPeter overcomes the doubts of his brothers in the _Tale of a Tub_.\n\"Materialist\" was the mildest term applied to him--fortunate if he escaped\npelting with \"infidel\" and \"atheist.\" There may be scientific Rip Van\nWinkles about, who still hold by vital force; but among those biologists\nwho have not been asleep for the last quarter of a century \"vital force\" no\nlonger figures in the vocabulary of science. It is a patent survival of\nrealism; the generalisation from experience that all living bodies exhibit\ncertain activities of a definite character is made the basis of the notion\n{261} that every living body contains an entity, \"vital force,\" which is\nassumed to be the cause of those activities.\n\nIt is remarkable, in looking back, to notice to what an extent this and\nother survivals of scholastic realism arrested or, at any rate, impeded the\napplication of sound scientific principles to the investigation of\nbiological phenomena. When I was beginning to think about these matters,\nthe scientific world was occasionally agitated by discussions respecting\nthe nature of the \"species\" and \"genera\" of Naturalists, of a different\norder from the disputes of a later time. I think most were agreed that a\n\"species\" was something which existed objectively, somehow or other, and\nhad been created by a Divine fiat. As to the objective reality of genera,\nthere was a good deal of difference of opinion. On the other hand, there\nwere a few who could see no objective reality in anything but individuals,\nand looked upon both species and genera as hypostatised universals. As for\nmyself, I seem to have unconsciously emulated William of Occam, inasmuch as\nalmost the first public discourse I ever ventured upon, dealt with \"Animal\nIndividuality,\" and its tendency was to fight the Nominalist battle even in\nthat quarter.\n\nRealism appeared in still stranger forms at the time to which I refer. The\ncommunity of plan which is observable in each great group of animals was\nhypostatised into a Platonic idea with the appropriate name of \"archetype,\"\nand we were told, as a disciple of Philo-Judaeus might have told us, that\nthis realistic figment was \"the archetypal light\" by which Nature {262} has\nbeen guided amidst the \"wreck of worlds.\" So, again, another naturalist,\nwho had no less earned a well-deserved reputation by his contributions to\npositive knowledge, put forward a theory of the production of living things\nwhich, as nearly as the increase of knowledge allowed, was a reproduction\nof the doctrine inculcated by the Jewish Cabbala.\n\nAnnexing the archetype notion, and carrying it to its full logical\nconsequence, the author of this theory conceived that the species of\nanimals and plants were so many incarnations of the thoughts of\nGod--material representations of Divine ideas--during the particular period\nof the world's history at which they existed. But, under the influence of\nthe embryological and palaeontological discoveries of modern times, which\nhad already lent some scientific support to the revived ancient theories of\ncosmical evolution or emanation, the ingenious author of this speculation,\nwhile denying and repudiating the ordinary theory of evolution by\nsuccessive modification of individuals, maintained and endeavoured to prove\nthe occurrence of a progressive modification in the Divine ideas of\nsuccessive epochs.\n\nOn the foundation of a supposed elevation of organisation in the whole\nliving population of any epoch as compared with that of its predecessor,\nand a supposed complete difference in species between the populations of\nany two epochs (neither of which suppositions has stood the test of further\ninquiry), the author of this speculation based his conclusion that the\nCreator had, so to speak, improved upon his thoughts as time went on; and\nthat, as each such {263} amended scheme of creation came up, the embodiment\nof the earlier divine thoughts was swept away by a universal catastrophe,\nand an incarnation of the improved ideas took its place. Only after the\nlast such \"wreck\" thus brought about, did the embodiment of a divine\nthought, in the shape of the first man, make its appearance as the _ne plus\nultra_ of the cosmogonical process.\n\nI imagine that Louis Agassiz, the genial backwoodsman of the science of my\nyoung days, who did more to open out new tracks in the scientific forest\nthan most men, would have been much surprised to learn that he was\npreaching the doctrine of the Cabbala, pure and simple. According to this\nmodification of Neoplatonism by contact with Hebrew speculation, the divine\nessence is unknowable--without form or attribute; but the interval between\nit and the world of sense is filled by intelligible entities, which are\nnothing but the familiar hypostatised abstractions of the realists. These\nhave emanated, like immense waves of light, from the divine centre, and, as\nten consecutive zones of Sephiroth, form the universe. The farther away\nfrom the centre, the more the primitive light wanes, until the periphery\nends in those mere negations, darkness and evil, which are the essence of\nmatter. On this, the divine agency transmitted through the Sephiroth\noperates after the fashion of the Aristotelian forms, and, at first,\nproduces the lowest of a series of worlds. After a certain duration the\nprimitive world is demolished and its fragments used up in making a better;\nand {264} this process is repeated, until at length a final world, with man\nfor its crown and finish, makes its appearance. It is needless to trace the\nprocess of retrogressive metamorphosis by which, through the agency of the\nMessiah, the steps of the process of evolution here sketched are retraced.\nSufficient has been said to prove that the extremest realism current in the\nphilosophy of the thirteenth century can be fully matched by the\nspeculations of our own time.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{265}\n\nVII\n\nSCIENCE AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE\n\nIn the opening sentences of a contribution to the last number of this\nReview,[68] the Duke of Argyll has favoured me with a lecture on the\nproprieties of controversy, to which I should be disposed to listen with\nmore docility if his Grace's precepts appeared to me to be based upon\nrational principles, or if his example were more exemplary.\n\nWith respect to the latter point, the Duke has thought fit to entitle his\narticle \"Professor Huxley on Canon Liddon,\" and thus forces into prominence\nan element of personality, which those who read the paper which is the\nobject of the Duke's animadversions will observe I have endeavoured, most\ncarefully, to avoid. My criticisms dealt with a report of a sermon,\npublished in a newspaper, and thereby addressed to all the world. Whether\nthat sermon was preached by A or B was not a matter of the smallest\nconsequence; and I went out of my way to absolve the learned divine to whom\nthe discourse was attributed, from the responsibility for statements which,\nfor anything I knew to the contrary, might contain {266} imperfect, or\ninaccurate, representations of his views. The assertion that I had the wish\nor was beset by any \"temptation to attack\" Canon Liddon is simply contrary\nto fact.\n\nBut suppose that if, instead of sedulously avoiding even the appearance of\nsuch attack, I had thought fit to take a different course; suppose that,\nafter satisfying myself that the eminent clergyman whose name is paraded by\nthe Duke of Argyll had really uttered the words attributed to him from the\npulpit of St. Paul's, what right would any one have to find fault with my\naction on grounds either of justice, expediency, or good taste?\n\nEstablishment has its duties as well as its rights. The clergy of a State\nChurch enjoy many advantages over those of unprivileged and unendowed\nreligious persuasions; but they lie under a correlative responsibility to\nthe State, and to every member of the body politic. I am not aware that any\nsacredness attaches to sermons. If preachers stray beyond the doctrinal\nlimits set by lay lawyers, the Privy Council will see to it; and, if they\nthink fit to use their pulpits for the promulgation of literary, or\nhistorical, or scientific errors, it is not only the right, but the duty,\nof the humblest layman, who may happen to be better informed, to correct\nthe evil effects of such perversion of the opportunities which the State\naffords them and such misuse of the authority which its support lends them.\nWhatever else it may claim to be, in its relations with the State, the\nEstablished Church is a branch of the Civil Service; and, for those who\n{267} repudiate the ecclesiastical authority of the clergy, they are merely\ncivil servants, as much responsible to the English people for the proper\nperformance of their duties as any others.\n\nThe Duke of Argyll tells us that the \"work and calling\" of the clergy\nprevent them from \"pursuing disputation as others can.\" I wonder if his\nGrace ever reads the so-called religious newspapers. It is not an\noccupation which I should commend to any one who wishes to employ his time\nprofitably; but a very short devotion to this exercise will suffice to\nconvince him that the \"pursuit of disputation,\" carried to a degree of\nacrimony and vehemence unsurpassed in lay controversies, seems to be found\nquite compatible with the \"work and calling\" of a remarkably large number\nof the clergy.\n\nFinally, it appears to me that nothing can be in worse taste than the\nassumption that a body of English gentlemen can, by any possibility, desire\nthat immunity from criticism which the Duke of Argyll claims for them.\nNothing would be more personally offensive to me than the supposition that\nI shirked criticism, just or unjust, of any lecture I ever gave. I should\nbe utterly ashamed of myself if, when I stood up as an instructor of\nothers, I had not taken every pains to assure myself of the truth of that\nwhich I was about to say; and I should feel myself bound to be even more\ncareful with a popular assembly, who would take me more or less on trust,\nthan with an audience of competent and critical experts.\n\nI decline to assume that the standard of morality, {268} in these matters,\nis lower among the clergy than it is among scientific men. I refuse to\nthink that the priest who stands up before a congregation, as the minister\nand interpreter of the Divinity, is less careful in his utterances, less\nready to meet adverse comment, than the layman who comes before his\naudience, as the minister and interpreter of nature. Yet what should we\nthink of the man of science who, when his ignorance or his carelessness was\nexposed, whined about the want of delicacy of his critics, or pleaded his\n\"work and calling\" as a reason for being let alone?\n\nNo man, nor any body of men, is good enough, or wise enough, to dispense\nwith the tonic of criticism. Nothing has done more harm to the clergy than\nthe practice, too common among laymen, of regarding them, when in the\npulpit, as a sort of chartered libertines, whose divagations are not to be\ntaken seriously. And I am well assured that the distinguished divine, to\nwhom the sermon is attributed, is the last person who would desire to avail\nhimself of the dishonouring protection which has been superfluously thrown\nover him.\n\nSo much for the lecture on propriety. But the Duke of Argyll, to whom the\nhortatory style seems to come naturally, does me the honour to make my\nsayings the subjects of a series of other admonitions, some on\nphilosophical, some on geological, some on biological topics. I can but\nrejoice that the Duke's authority in these matters is not always employed\nto show that I am ignorant of them; on the contrary, I meet with an amount\nof agreement, even of {269} approbation, for which I proffer such gratitude\nas may be due, even if that gratitude is sometimes almost overshadowed by\nsurprise.\n\nI am unfeignedly astonished to find that the Duke of Argyll, who professes\nto intervene on behalf of the preacher, does really, like another Balaam,\nbless me altogether in respect of the main issue.\n\nI denied the justice of the preacher's ascription to men of science of the\ndoctrine that miracles are incredible, because they are violations of\nnatural law; and the Duke of Argyll says that he believes my \"denial to be\nwell founded. The preacher was answering an objection which has now been\ngenerally abandoned.\" Either the preacher knew this or he did not know it.\nIt seems to me, as a mere lay teacher, to be a pity that the \"great dome of\nSt. Paul's\" should have been made to \"echo\" (if so be that such stentorian\neffects were really produced) a statement which, admitting the first\nalternative, was unfair, and, admitting the second, was ignorant.[69]\n\n{270}\n\nHaving thus sacrificed one half of the preacher's arguments, the Duke of\nArgyll proceeds to make equally short work with the other half. It appears\nthat he fully accepts my position that the occurrence of those events,\nwhich the preacher speaks of as catastrophes, is no evidence of disorder,\ninasmuch as such catastrophes may be necessary occasional consequences of\nuniform changes. Whence I conclude, his Grace agrees with me, that the talk\nabout royal laws \"wrecking\" ordinary laws may be eloquent metaphor, but is\nalso nonsense.\n\nAnd now comes a further surprise. After having given these superfluous\nstabs to the slain body of the preacher's argument, my good ally remarks,\nwith magnificent calmness: \"So far, then, the preacher and the professor\nare at one.\" \"Let them smoke the calumet.\" By all means: smoke would be the\nmost appropriate symbol of this wonderful attempt to cover a retreat. After\nall, the Duke has come to bury the preacher, not to praise him; only he\nmakes the funeral obsequies look as much like a triumphal procession as\npossible.\n\nSo far as the questions between the preacher and myself are concerned,\nthen, I may feel happy. The authority of the Duke of Argyll is ranged on my\nside. But the Duke has raised a number of other questions, with respect to\nwhich I fear I shall have to dispense with his support--nay, even be\ncompelled to differ from him as much, or more, than I have done about his\nGrace's new rendering of the \"benefit of clergy.\" {271}\n\nIn discussing catastrophes, the Duke indulges in statements, partly\nscientific, partly anecdotic, which appear to me to be somewhat misleading.\nWe are told, to begin with, that Sir Charles Lyell's doctrine respecting\nthe proper mode of interpreting the facts of geology (which is commonly\ncalled uniformitarianism) \"does not hold its head quite so high as it once\ndid.\" That is great news indeed. But is it true? All I can say is that I am\naware of nothing that has happened of late that can in any way justify it;\nand my opinion is, that the body of Lyell's doctrine, as laid down in that\ngreat work, _The Principles of Geology_, whatever may have happened to its\nhead, is a chief and permanent constituent of the foundations of geological\nscience.\n\nBut this question cannot be advantageously discussed, unless we take some\npains to discriminate between the essential part of the uniformitarian\ndoctrine and its accessories; and it does not appear that the Duke of\nArgyll has carried his studies of geological philosophy so far as this\npoint. For he defines uniformitarianism to be the assumption of the\n\"extreme slowness and perfect continuity of all geological changes.\"\n\nWhat \"perfect continuity\" may mean in this definition, I am by no means\nsure; but I can only imagine that it signifies the absence of any break in\nthe course of natural order during the millions of years, the lapse of\nwhich is recorded by geological phenomena.\n\nIs the Duke of Argyll prepared to say that any {272} geologist of\nauthority, at the present day, believes that there is the slightest\nevidence of the occurrence of supernatural intervention, during the long\nages of which the monuments are preserved to us in the crust of the earth?\nAnd if he is not, in what sense has this part of the uniformitarian\ndoctrine, as he defines it, lowered its pretensions to represent scientific\ntruth?\n\nAs to the \"extreme slowness of all geological changes,\" it is simply a\npopular error to regard that as, in any wise, a fundamental and necessary\ndogma of uniformitarianism. It is extremely astonishing to me that any one\nwho has carefully studied Lyell's great work can have so completely failed\nto appreciate its purport, which yet is \"writ large\" on the very\ntitle-page: \"_The Principles of Geology, being an attempt to explain the\nformer changes of the earth's surface by reference to causes now in\noperation_.\" The essence of Lyell's doctrine is here written so that those\nwho run may read; and it has nothing to do with the quickness or slowness\nof the past changes of the earth's surface; except in so far as existing\nanalogous changes may go on slowly, and therefore create a presumption in\nfavour of the slowness of past changes.\n\nWith that epigrammatic force which characterises his style, Buffon wrote,\nnearly a hundred and fifty years ago, in his famous _Theorie de la Terre_:\n\"Pour juger de ce qui est arrive, et meme de ce qui arrivera, nous n'avons\nqu'a examiner ce qui arrive.\" The key of the past, as of the future, is to\nbe sought in the present, and only when known causes of change have {273}\nbeen shown to be insufficient have we any right to have recourse to unknown\ncauses. Geology is as much a historical science as archaeology; and I\napprehend that all sound historical investigation rests upon this axiom. It\nunderlay all Hutton's work and animated Lyell and Scrope in their\nsuccessful efforts to revolutionise the geology of half a century ago.\n\nThere is no antagonism whatever, and there never was, between the belief in\nthe views which had their chief and unwearied advocate in Lyell and the\nbelief in the occurrence of catastrophes. The first edition of Lyell's\n_Principles_, published in 1830, lies before me; and a large part of the\nfirst volume is occupied by an account of volcanic, seismic, and diluvial\ncatastrophes which have occurred within the historical period. Moreover,\nthe author, over and over again, expressly draws the attention of his\nreaders to the consistency of catastrophes with his doctrine.\n\n    Notwithstanding, therefore, that we have not witnessed within the last\n    three thousand years the devastation by deluge of a large continent,\n    yet, as we may predict the future occurrence of such catastrophes, we\n    are authorised to regard them as part of the present order of nature,\n    and they may be introduced into geological speculations respecting the\n    past, provided that we do not imagine them to have been more frequent\n    or general than we expect them to be in time to come (vol. i. p. 89).\n\nAgain:--\n\n    If we regard each of the causes separately, which we know to be at\n    present the most instrumental in remodelling the state of the surface,\n    we shall find that we must expect each to be in action for thousands of\n    years, without producing any extensive {274} alterations in the\n    habitable surface, and then to give rise, during a very brief period,\n    to important revolutions (vol. ii. p. 161).[70]\n\nLyell quarrelled with the catastrophists then, by no means because they\nassumed that catastrophes occur and have occurred, but because they had got\ninto the habit of calling on their god Catastrophe to help them, when they\nought to have been putting their shoulders to the wheel of observation of\nthe present course of nature, in order to help themselves out of their\ndifficulties. And geological science has become what it is, chiefly because\ngeologists have gradually accepted Lyell's doctrine and followed his\nprecepts.\n\nSo far as I know anything about the matter, there is nothing that can be\ncalled proof, that the causes of geological phenomena operated more\nintensely or more rapidly, at any time between the older tertiary and the\noldest palaeozoic epochs than they have done between the older tertiary\nepoch and the present day. And if that is so, uniformitarianism, even as\nlimited by Lyell,[71] has no call to lower its crest. But if the facts were\notherwise, the position Lyell took up remains {275} impregnable. He did not\nsay that the geological operations of nature were never more rapid, or more\nvast, than they are now; what he did maintain is the very different\nproposition that there is no good evidence of anything of the kind. And\nthat proposition has not yet been shown to be incorrect.\n\nI owe more than I can tell to the careful study of the _Principles of\nGeology_ in my young days; and, long before the year 1856, my mind was\nfamiliar with the truth that \"the doctrine of uniformity is not\nincompatible with great and sudden changes,\" which, as I have shown, is\ntaught _totidem verbis_ in that work. Even had it been possible for me to\nshut my eyes to the sense of what I had read in the _Principles_, Whewell's\n_Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences_, published in 1840, a work with\nwhich I was also tolerably familiar, must have opened them. For the always\nacute, if not always profound, author, in arguing against Lyell's\nuniformitarianism, expressly points out that it does not in any way\ncontravene the occurrence of catastrophes.\n\n    With regard to such occurrences [earthquakes, deluges, etc.], terrible\n    as they appear at the time, they may not much affect the {276} average\n    rate of change: there may be a _cycle_, though an irregular one, of\n    rapid and slow change: and if such cycles go on succeeding each other,\n    we may still call the order of nature uniform, notwithstanding the\n    periods of violence which it involves.[72]\n\nThe reader who has followed me through this brief chapter of the history of\ngeological philosophy will probably find the following passage in the paper\nof the Duke of Argyll to be not a little remarkable:--\n\n    Many years ago, when I had the honour of being President of the British\n    Association,[73] I ventured to point out, in the presence and in the\n    hearing of that most distinguished man [Sir C. Lyell] that the doctrine\n    of uniformity was not incompatible with great and sudden changes, since\n    cycles of these and other cycles of comparative rest might well be\n    constituent parts of that uniformity which he asserted. Lyell did not\n    object to this extended interpretation of his own doctrine, and indeed\n    expressed to me his entire concurrence.\n\nI should think he did; for, as I have shown, there was nothing in it that\nLyell himself had not said, six-and-twenty years before, and enforced,\nthree years before; and it is almost verbally identical with the view of\nuniformitarianism taken by Whewell, sixteen years before, in a work with\nwhich, one would think, that any one who undertakes to discuss the\nphilosophy of science should be familiar.\n\nThirty years have elapsed since the beginner of 1856 persuaded himself that\nhe enlightened the foremost geologist of his time, and one of the most\nacute and far-seeing men of science of any time, as to the scope of the\ndoctrines which the veteran philosopher {277} had grown gray in\npromulgating; and the Duke of Argyll's acquaintance with the literature of\ngeology has not, even now, become sufficiently profound to dissipate that\npleasant delusion.\n\nIf the Duke of Argyll's guidance in that branch of physical science, with\nwhich alone he has given evidence of any practical acquaintance, is thus\nunsafe, I may breathe more freely in setting my opinion against the\nauthoritative deliverances of his Grace about matters which lie outside the\nprovince of geology.\n\nAnd here the Duke's paper offers me such a wealth of opportunities that\nchoice becomes embarrassing. I must bear in mind the good old adage, \"Non\nmulta sed multum.\" Tempting as it would be to follow the Duke through his\nlabyrinthine misunderstandings of the ordinary terminology of philosophy,\nand to comment on the curious unintelligibility which hangs about his\nfrequent outpourings of fervid language, limits of space oblige me to\nrestrict myself to those points, the discussion of which may help to\nenlighten the public in respect of matters of more importance than the\ncompetence of my Mentor for the task which he has undertaken.\n\nI am not sure when the employment of the word Law, in the sense in which we\nspeak of laws of nature, commenced, but examples of it may be found in the\nworks of Bacon, Descartes, and Spinoza. Bacon employs \"Law\" as the\nequivalent of \"Form,\" and I am inclined to think that he may be responsible\nfor a good deal of the confusion that has subsequently {278} arisen; but I\nam not aware that the term is used by other authorities, in the seventeenth\nand eighteenth centuries, in any other sense than that of \"rule\" or\n\"definite order\" of the coexistence of things or succession of events in\nnature. Descartes speaks of \"regles, que je nomme les lois de la nature.\"\nLeibnitz says \"loi ou regle generale,\" as if he considered the terms\ninterchangeable.\n\nThe Duke of Argyll, however, affirms that the \"law of gravitation\" as put\nforth by Newton was something more than the statement of an observed order.\nHe admits that Kepler's three laws \"were an observed order of facts and\nnothing more.\" As to the law of gravitation, \"it contains an element which\nKepler's laws did not contain, even an element of causation, the\nrecognition of which belongs to a higher category of intellectual\nconceptions than that which is concerned in the mere observation and record\nof separate and apparently unconnected facts.\" There is hardly a line in\nthese paragraphs which appears to me to be indisputable. But, to confine\nmyself to the matter in hand, I cannot conceive that any one who had taken\nordinary pains to acquaint himself with the real nature of either Kepler's\nor Newton's work could have written them. That the labours of Kepler, of\nall men in the world, should be called \"mere observation and record,\" is\ntruly wonderful. And any one who will look into the _Principia_, or the\n_Optics_, or the _Letters to Bentley_, will see, even if he has no more\nspecial knowledge of the topics discussed than I have, that Newton over and\nover again insisted that he had {279} nothing to do with gravitation as a\nphysical cause, and that when he used the terms attraction, force, and the\nlike, he employed them, as he says, \"_mathematice_\" and not \"_physice_\".\n\n    How these attractions [of gravity, magnetism, and electricity] may be\n    performed, I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be\n    performed by impulse or by some other means unknown to me. I use that\n    word here to signify only in a general way any force by which bodies\n    tend towards one another, whatever be the cause.[74]\n\nAccording to my reading of the best authorities upon the history of\nscience, Newton discovered neither gravitation, nor the law of gravitation;\nnor did he pretend to offer more than a conjecture as to the causation of\ngravitation. Moreover, his assertion that the notion of a body acting where\nit is not, is one that no competent thinker could entertain, is\nantagonistic to the whole current conception of attractive and repulsive\nforces, and therefore of \"the attractive force of gravitation.\" What, then,\nwas that labour of unsurpassed magnitude and excellence and immortal\ninfluence which Newton did perform? In the first place, Newton defined the\nlaws, rules, or observed order of the phenomena of motion, which come under\nour daily observation, with greater precision than had been before\nattained; and, by following out with marvellous power and subtlety the\nmathematical consequences of these rules, he almost created the modern\nscience of pure mechanics. In the second place, applying exactly the same\nmethod {280} to the explication of the facts of astronomy as that which was\napplied a century and a half later to the facts of geology by Lyell, he set\nhimself to solve the following problem. Assuming that all bodies, free to\nmove, tend to approach one another as the earth and the bodies on it do;\nassuming that the strength of that tendency is directly as the mass and\ninversely as the squares of the distances; assuming that the laws of\nmotion, determined for terrestrial bodies, hold good throughout the\nuniverse; assuming that the planets and their satellites were created and\nplaced at their observed mean distances, and that each received a certain\nimpulse from the Creator; will the form of the orbits, the varying rates of\nmotion of the planets, and the ratio between those rates and their\ndistances from the sun which must follow by mathematical reasoning from\nthese premisses, agree with the order of facts determined by Kepler and\nothers, or not?\n\nNewton, employing mathematical methods which are the admiration of adepts,\nbut which no one but himself appears to have been able to use with ease,\nnot only answered this question in the affirmative, but stayed not his\nconstructive genius before it had founded modern physical astronomy.\n\nThe historians of mechanical and of astronomical science appear to be\nagreed that he was the first person who clearly and distinctly put forth\nthe hypothesis that the phenomena comprehended under the general name of\n\"gravity\" follow the same order throughout the universe, and that all\nmaterial bodies exhibit these phenomena; so that, in this sense, the {281}\nidea of universal gravitation may, doubtless, be properly ascribed to him.\n\nNewton proved that the laws of Kepler were particular consequences of the\nlaws of motion and the law of gravitation--in other words, the reason of\nthe first lay in the two latter. But to talk of the law of gravitation\nalone as the reason of Kepler's laws, and still more as standing in any\ncausal relation to Kepler's laws, is simply a misuse of language. It would\nreally be interesting if the Duke of Argyll would explain how he proposes\nto set about showing that the elliptical form of the orbits of the planets,\nthe constant area described by the radius vector, and the proportionality\nof the squares of the periodic times to the cubes of the distances from the\nsun, are either caused by the \"force of gravitation\" or deducible from the\n\"law of gravitation.\" I conceive that it would be about as apposite to say\nthat the various compounds of nitrogen with oxygen are caused by chemical\nattraction and deducible from the atomic theory.\n\n\n\nNewton assuredly lent no shadow of support to the modern pseudo-scientific\nphilosophy which confounds laws with causes. I have not taken the trouble\nto trace out this commonest of fallacies to its first beginning; but I was\nfamiliar with it in full bloom, more than thirty years ago, in a work which\nhad a great vogue in its day--the _Vestiges of the Natural History of\nCreation_--of which the first edition was published in 1844.\n\nIt is full of apt and forcible illustrations of {282} pseudoscientific\nrealism. Consider, for example, this gem serene. When a boy who has climbed\na tree loses his hold of the branch, \"the law of gravitation unrelentingly\npulls him to the ground, and then he is hurt,\" whereby the Almighty is\nquite relieved from any responsibility for the accident. Here is the \"law\nof gravitation\" acting as a cause in a way quite in accordance with the\nDuke of Argyll's conception of it. In fact, in the mind of the author of\nthe _Vestiges_, \"laws\" are existences intermediate between the Creator and\nhis works, like the \"ideas\" of the Platonisers or the Logos of the\nAlexandrians.[75] I may cite a passage which is quite in the vein of\nPhilo:--\n\n    We have seen powerful evidences that the construction of this globe and\n    its associates; and, inferentially, that of all the other globes in\n    space, was the result, not of any immediate or personal exertion on the\n    part of the Deity, but of natural laws which are the expression of his\n    will. What is to hinder our supposing that the organic creation is also\n    a result of natural laws which are in like manner an expression of his\n    will? (p. 154, 1st edition).\n\nAnd creation \"operating by law\" is constantly cited as relieving the\nCreator from trouble about insignificant details.\n\nI am perplexed to picture to myself the state of mind which accepts these\nverbal juggleries. It is intelligible that the Creator should operate\naccording to such rules as he might think fit to lay down for himself (and\ntherefore according to law); but that would leave the operation of his will\njust as much a direct personal act as it would be under any other {283}\ncircumstances. I can also understand that (as in Leibnitz's caricature of\nNewton's views) the Creator might have made the cosmical machine, and,\nafter setting it going, have left it to itself till it needed repair. But\nthen, by the supposition, his personal responsibility would have been\ninvolved in all that it did, just as much as a dynamiter is responsible for\nwhat happens when he has set his machine going and left it to explode.\n\nThe only hypothesis which gives a sort of mad consistency to the\nVestigiarian's views is the supposition that laws are a kind of angels or\ndemiurgoi, who, being supplied with the Great Architect's plan, were\npermitted to settle the details among themselves. Accepting this doctrine,\nthe conception of royal laws and plebeian laws, and of those more than\nHomeric contests in which the big laws \"wreck\" the little ones, becomes\nquite intelligible. And, in fact, the honour of the paternity of those\nremarkable ideas which come into full flower in the preacher's discourse,\nmust, so far as my imperfect knowledge goes, be attributed to the author of\nthe _Vestiges_.\n\nBut the author of the _Vestiges_ is not the only writer who is responsible\nfor the current pseudo-scientific mystifications which hang about the term\n\"law.\" When I wrote my paper about \"Scientific and Pseudo-Scientific\nRealism,\" I had not read a work by the Duke of Argyll, _The Reign of Law_,\nwhich, I believe, has enjoyed, possibly still enjoys, a widespread\npopularity. But the vivacity of the Duke's attack led me to think it\npossible that criticisms directed elsewhere might have come home to {284}\nhim. And, in fact, I find that the second chapter of the work in question,\nwhich is entitled \"Law; its definitions,\" is, from my point of view, a sort\nof \"summa\" of pseudo-scientific philosophy. It will be worth while to\nexamine it in some detail.\n\nIn the first place, it is to be noted that the author of the _Reign of Law_\nadmits that \"law,\" in many cases, means nothing more than the statement of\nthe order in which facts occur, or, as he says, \"an observed order of\nfacts\" (p. 66). But his appreciation of the value of accuracy of expression\ndoes not hinder him from adding, almost in the same breath, \"In this sense\nthe laws of nature are simply those facts of nature which recur according\nto rule\" (p. 66). Thus \"laws,\" which were rightly said to be the statement\nof an order of facts in one paragraph, are declared to be the facts\nthemselves in the next.\n\nWe are next told that, though it may be customary and permissible to use\n\"law\" in the sense of a statement of the order of facts, this is a low use\nof the word; and indeed, two pages farther on, the writer, flatly\ncontradicting himself, altogether denies its admissibility.\n\n    An observed order of facts, to be entitled to the rank of a law, must\n    be an order so constant and uniform as to indicate necessity, and\n    necessity can only arise out of the action of some compelling force (p.\n    68).\n\nThis is undoubtedly one of the most singular propositions that I have ever\nmet with in a professedly scientific work, and its rarity is embellished by\nanother direct self-contradiction which it implies. For {285} on the\npreceding page (67), when the Duke of Argyll is speaking of the laws of\nKepler, which he admits to be laws, and which are types of that which men\nof science understand by \"laws,\" he says that they are \"simply and purely\nan order of facts.\" Moreover, he adds: \"A very large proportion of the laws\nof every science are laws of this kind and in this sense.\"\n\nIf, according to the Duke of Argyll's admission, law is understood, in this\nsense, thus widely and constantly by scientific authorities, where is the\njustification for his unqualified assertion that such statements of the\nobserved order of facts are not \"entitled to the rank\" of laws?\n\nBut let us examine the consequences of the really interesting proposition I\nhave just quoted. I presume that it is a law of nature that \"a straight\nline is the shortest distance between two points.\" This law affirms the\nconstant association of a certain fact of form with a certain fact of\ndimension. Whether the notion of necessity which attaches to it has an _a\npriori_ or an _a posteriori_ origin is a question not relevant to the\npresent discussion. But I would beg to be informed, if it is necessary,\nwhere is the \"compelling force\" out of which the necessity arises; and\nfurther, if it is not necessary, whether it loses the character of a law of\nnature?\n\nI take it to be a law of nature, based on unexceptionable evidence, that\nthe mass of matter remains unchanged, whatever chemical or other\nmodifications it may undergo. This law is one of the foundations of\nchemistry. But it is by no means necessary. It {286} is quite possible to\nimagine that the mass of matter should vary according to circumstances, as\nwe know its weight does. Moreover, the determination of the \"force\" which\nmakes mass constant (if there is any intelligibility in that form of words)\nwould not, so far as I can see, confer any more validity on the law than it\nhas now.\n\nThere is a law of nature, so well vouched by experience, that all mankind,\nfrom pure logicians in search of examples to parish sextons in search of\nfees, confide in it. This is the law that \"all men are mortal.\" It is\nsimply a statement of the observed order of facts that all men sooner or\nlater die. I am not acquainted with any law of nature which is more\n\"constant and uniform\" than this. But will any one tell me that death is\n\"necessary\"? Certainly there is no _a priori_ necessity in the case, for\nvarious men have been imagined to be immortal. And I should be glad to be\ninformed of any \"necessity\" that can be deduced from biological\nconsiderations. It is quite conceivable, as has recently been pointed out,\nthat some of the lowest forms of life may be immortal, after a fashion.\nHowever this may be, I would further ask, supposing \"all men are mortal\" to\nbe a real law of nature, where and what is that to which, with any\npropriety, the title of \"compelling force\" of the law can be given?\n\nOn page 69, the Duke of Argyll asserts that the law of gravitation \"is a\nlaw in the sense, not merely of a rule, but of a cause.\" But this revival\nof the teaching of the _Vestiges_ has already been examined {287} and\ndisposed of; and when the Duke of Argyll states that the \"observed order\"\nwhich Kepler had discovered was simply a necessary consequence of the force\nof \"gravitation,\" I need not recapitulate the evidence which proves such a\nstatement to be wholly fallacious. But it may be useful to say, once more,\nthat, at this present moment, nobody knows anything about the existence of\na \"force\" of gravitation apart from the fact; that Newton declared the\nordinary notion of such force to be inconceivable; that various attempts\nhave been made to account for the order of facts we call gravitation,\nwithout recourse to the notion of attractive force; that, if such a force\nexists, it is utterly incompetent to account for Kepler's laws, without\ntaking into the reckoning a great number of other considerations; and,\nfinally, that all we know about the \"force\" of gravitation, or any other\nso-called \"force,\" is that it is a name for the hypothetical cause of an\nobserved order of facts.\n\nThus, when the Duke of Argyll says: \"Force, ascertained according to some\nmeasure of its operation--this is indeed one of the definitions, but only\none, of a scientific law\" (p. 71), I reply that it is a definition which\nmust be repudiated by every one who possesses an adequate acquaintance with\neither the facts, or the philosophy, of science and relegated to the limbo\nof pseudo-scientific fallacies. If the human mind had never entertained\nthis notion of \"force,\" nay, if it substituted bare invariable succession\nfor the ordinary notion of causation, the idea of law, as the expression of\na constantly-observed order, which {288} generates a corresponding\nintensity of expectation in our minds, would have exactly the same value,\nand play its part in real science, exactly as it does now.\n\nIt is needless to extend further the present excursus on the origin and\nhistory of modern pseudo-science. Under such high patronage as it has\nenjoyed, it has grown and flourished until, nowadays, it is becoming\nsomewhat rampant. It has its weekly \"Ephemerides,\" in which every new\npseudo-scientific mare's-nest is hailed and belauded with the unconscious\nunfairness of ignorance; and an army of \"reconcilers,\" enlisted in its\nservice, whose business seems to be to mix the black of dogma and the white\nof science into the neutral tint of what they call liberal theology.\n\nI remember that, not long after the publication of the _Vestiges_, a shrewd\nand sarcastic countryman of the author defined it as \"cauld kail made het\nagain.\" A cynic might find amusement in the reflection that, at the present\ntime, the principles and the methods of the much-vilified Vestigiarian are\nbeing \"made het again\"; and are not only \"echoed by the dome of St.\nPaul's,\" but thundered from the castle of Inveraray. But my turn of mind is\nnot cynical, and I can but regret the waste of time and energy bestowed on\nthe endeavour to deal with the most difficult problems of science, by those\nwho have neither undergone the discipline, nor possess the information,\nwhich are indispensable to the successful issue of such an enterprise.\n\nI have already had occasion to remark that the {289} Duke of Argyll's views\nof the conduct of controversy are different from mine; and this\nmuch-to-be-lamented discrepancy becomes yet more accentuated when the Duke\nreaches biological topics. Anything that was good enough for Sir Charles\nLyell, in his department of study, is certainly good enough for me in mine;\nand I by no means demur to being pedagogically instructed about a variety\nof matters with which it has been the business of my life to try to\nacquaint myself. But the Duke of Argyll is not content with favouring me\nwith his opinions about my own business; he also answers for mine; and, at\nthat point, really the worm must turn. I am told that \"no one knows better\nthan Professor Huxley\" a variety of things which I really do not know; and\nI am said to be a disciple of that \"Positive Philosophy\" which I have, over\nand over again, publicly repudiated in language which is certainly not\nlacking in intelligibility, whatever may be its other defects.\n\nI am told that I have been amusing myself with a \"metaphysical exercitation\nor logomachy\" (may I remark incidentally that these are not quite\nconvertible terms?), when, to the best of my belief, I have been trying to\nexpose a process of mystification, based upon the use of scientific\nlanguage by writers who exhibit no sign of scientific training, of accurate\nscientific knowledge, or of clear ideas respecting the philosophy of\nscience, which is doing very serious harm to the public. Naturally enough,\nthey take the lion's skin of scientific phraseology for evidence that the\nvoice which issues from beneath it is the voice of {290} science, and I\ndesire to relieve them from the consequences of their error.\n\nThe Duke of Argyll asks, apparently with sorrow that it should be his duty\nto subject me to reproof--\n\n    What shall we say of a philosophy which confounds the organic with the\n    inorganic, and, refusing to take note of a difference so profound,\n    assumes to explain under one common abstraction, the movements due to\n    gravitation and the movements due to the mind of man?\n\nTo which I may fitly reply by another question: What shall we say to a\ncontroversialist who attributes to the subject of his attack opinions which\nare notoriously not his; and expresses himself in such a manner that it is\nobvious he is unacquainted with even the rudiments of that knowledge which\nis necessary to the discussion into which he has rushed?\n\nWhat line of my writing can the Duke of Argyll produce which confounds the\norganic with the inorganic?\n\nAs to the latter half of the paragraph, I have to confess a doubt whether\nit has any definite meaning. But I imagine that the Duke is alluding to my\nassertion that the law of gravitation is nowise \"suspended\" or \"defied\"\nwhen a man lifts his arm; but that, under such circumstances, part of the\nstore of energy in the universe operates on the arm at a mechanical\nadvantage as against the operation of another part. I was simple enough to\nthink that no one who had as much knowledge of physiology as is to be found\nin an elementary primer, or who had ever heard of the greatest physical\ngeneralisation of modern {291} times--the doctrine of the conservation of\nenergy--would dream of doubting my statement; and I was further simple\nenough to think that no one who lacked these qualifications would feel\ntempted to charge me with error. It appears that my simplicity is greater\nthan my powers of imagination.\n\nThe Duke of Argyll may not be aware of the fact, but it is nevertheless\ntrue, that when a man's arm is raised, in sequence to that state of\nconsciousness we call a volition, the volition is not the immediate cause\nof the elevation of the arm. On the contrary, that operation is effected by\na certain change of form, technically known as \"contraction,\" in sundry\nmasses of flesh, technically known as muscles, which are fixed to the bones\nof the shoulder in such a manner that, if these muscles contract, they must\nraise the arm. Now each of these muscles is a machine comparable, in a\ncertain sense, to one of the donkey-engines of a steamship, but more\ncomplete, inasmuch as the source of its ability to change its form, or\ncontract, lies within itself. Every time that, by contracting, the muscle\ndoes work, such as that involved in raising the arm, more or less of the\nmaterial which it contains is used up, just as more or less of the fuel of\na steam-engine is used up, when it does work. And I do not think there is a\ndoubt in the mind of any competent physicist or physiologist that the work\ndone in lifting the weight of the arm is the mechanical equivalent of a\ncertain proportion of the energy set free by the molecular changes which\ntake place in the muscle. It is further a tolerably {292} well-based belief\nthat this, and all other forms of energy, are mutually convertible; and,\ntherefore, that they all come under that general law or statement of the\norder of facts, called the conservation of energy. And, as that certainly\nis an abstraction, so the view which the Duke of Argyll thinks so extremely\nabsurd is really one of the commonplaces of physiology. But this Review is\nhardly an appropriate place for giving instruction in the elements of that\nscience, and I content myself with recommending the Duke of Argyll to\ndevote some study to Book II. chap. v. section 4 of my friend Dr. Foster's\nexcellent textbook of Physiology (1st edition, 1877, p. 321), which begins\nthus:--\n\n    Broadly speaking, the animal body is a machine for converting potential\n    into actual energy. The potential energy is supplied by the food; this\n    the metabolism of the body converts into the actual energy of heat and\n    mechanical labour.\n\nThere is no more difficult problem in the world than that of the relation\nof the state of consciousness, termed volition, to the mechanical work\nwhich frequently follows upon it. But no one can even comprehend the nature\nof the problem, who has not carefully studied the long series of modes of\nmotion which, without a break, connect the energy which does that work with\nthe general store of energy. The ultimate form of the problem is this: Have\nwe any reason to believe that a feeling, or state of consciousness, is\ncapable of directly affecting the motion of even the smallest conceivable\nmolecule of matter? Is such a thing even conceivable? If we answer these\n{293} questions in the negative, it follows that volition may be a sign,\nbut cannot be a cause, of bodily motion. If we answer them in the\naffirmative, then states of consciousness become undistinguishable from\nmaterial things; for it is the essential nature of matter to be the vehicle\nor substratum of mechanical energy.\n\nThere is nothing new in all this. I have merely put into modern language\nthe issue raised by Descartes more than two centuries ago. The philosophies\nof the Occasionalists, of Spinoza, of Malebranche, of modern idealism and\nmodern materialism, have all grown out of the controversies which\nCartesianism evoked. Of all this the pseudo-science of the present time\nappears to be unconscious; otherwise it would hardly content itself with\n\"making het again\" the pseudo-science of the past.\n\nIn the course of these observations I have already had occasion to express\nmy appreciation of the copious and perfervid eloquence which enriches the\nDuke of Argyll's pages. I am almost ashamed that a constitutional\ninsensibility to the Sirenian charms of rhetoric has permitted me, in\nwandering through these flowery meads, to be attracted, almost exclusively,\nto the bare places of fallacy and the stony grounds of deficient\ninformation, which are disguised, though not concealed, by these floral\ndecorations. But, in his concluding sentences, the Duke soars into a\nTyrtaean strain which roused even my dull soul.\n\n    It was high time, indeed, that some revolt should be raised against\n    that Reign of Terror which had come to be established in the scientific\n    world under the abuse of a great name. {294} Professor Huxley has not\n    joined this revolt openly, for as yet, indeed, it is only beginning to\n    raise its head. But more than once--and very lately--he has uttered a\n    warning voice against the shallow dogmatism that has provoked it. The\n    time is coming when that revolt will be carried further. Higher\n    interpretations will be established. Unless I am much mistaken, they\n    are already coming in sight (p. 339).\n\nI have been living very much out of the world for the last two or three\nyears, and when I read this denunciatory outburst, as of one filled with\nthe spirit of prophecy, I said to myself, \"Mercy upon us, what has\nhappened? Can it be that X. and Y. (it would be wrong to mention the names\nof the vigorous young friends which occurred to me) are playing Danton and\nRobespierre; and that a guillotine is erected in the courtyard of\nBurlington House for the benefit of all anti-Darwinian Fellows of the Royal\nSociety? Where are the secret conspirators against this tyranny, whom I am\nsupposed to favour, and yet not have the courage to join openly? And to\nthink of my poor oppressed friend, Mr. Herbert Spencer, 'compelled to speak\nwith bated breath' (p. 338) certainly for the first time in my thirty-odd\nyears' acquaintance with him!\" My alarm and horror at the supposition that,\nwhile I had been fiddling (or at any rate physicking), my beloved Rome had\nbeen burning, in this fashion, may be imagined.\n\nI am sure the Duke of Argyll will be glad to hear that the anxiety he\ncreated was of extremely short duration. It is my privilege to have access\nto the best sources of information, and nobody in the scientific world can\ntell me anything about either the \"Reign of {295} Terror\" or \"the Revolt.\"\nIn fact, the scientific world laughs most indecorously at the notion of the\nexistence of either; and some are so lost to the sense of the scientific\ndignity, that they descend to the use of transatlantic slang, and call it a\n\"bogus scare.\" As to my friend Mr. Herbert Spencer, I have every reason to\nknow that, in the _Factors of Organic Evolution_, he has said exactly what\nwas in his mind, without any particular deference to the opinions of the\nperson whom he is pleased to regard as his most dangerous critic and\nDevil's Advocate-General, and still less of any one else.\n\nI do not know whether the Duke of Argyll pictures himself as the Tallien of\nthis imaginary revolt against a no less imaginary Reign of Terror. But if\nso, I most respectfully but firmly decline to join his forces. It is only a\nfew weeks since I happened to read over again the first article which I\never wrote (now twenty-seven years ago) on the _Origin of Species_, and I\nfound nothing that I wished to modify in the opinions that are there\nexpressed, though the subsequent vast accumulation of evidence in favour of\nMr. Darwin's views would give me much to add. As is the case with all new\ndoctrines, so with that of Evolution, the enthusiasm of advocates has\nsometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism; and mere speculation has,\nat times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds. I have\noccasionally thought it wise to warn the more adventurous spirits among us\nagainst these dangers, in sufficiently plain language; and I have sometimes\njestingly said that I expected, {296} if I lived long enough, to be looked\non as a reactionary by some of my more ardent friends. But nothing short of\nmidsummer madness can account for the fiction that I am waiting till it is\nsafe to join openly a revolt, hatched by some person or persons unknown,\nagainst an intellectual movement with which I am in the most entire and\nhearty sympathy. It is a great many years since, at the outset of my\ncareer, I had to think seriously what life had to offer that was worth\nhaving. I came to the conclusion that the chief good, for me, was freedom\nto learn, think, and say what I pleased, when I pleased. I have acted on\nthat conviction, and have availed myself of the \"rara temporum felicitas\nubi sentire quae velis, et quae sentias dicere licet,\" which is now\nenjoyable, to the best of my ability; and though strongly, and perhaps\nwisely, warned that I should probably come to grief, I am entirely\nsatisfied with the results of the line of action I have adopted.\n\nMy career is at an end. I have\n\n    Warmed both hands before the fire of life;\n\nand nothing is left me, before I depart, but to help, or at any rate to\nabstain from hindering, the younger generation of men of science in doing\nbetter service to the cause we have at heart than I have been able to\nrender.\n\nAnd yet, forsooth, I am supposed to be waiting for the signal of \"revolt,\"\nwhich some fiery spirits among these young men are to raise before I dare\nexpress my real opinions concerning questions about which we {297} older\nmen had to fight, in the teeth of fierce public opposition and obloquy--of\nsomething which might almost justify even the grandiloquent epithet of a\nReign of Terror--before our excellent successors had left school.\n\nIt would appear that the spirit of pseudo-science has impregnated even the\nimagination of the Duke of Argyll. The scientific imagination always\nrestrains itself within the limits of probability.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{298}\n\nVIII\n\nAN EPISCOPAL TRILOGY\n\nIf there is any truth in the old adage that a burnt child dreads the fire,\nI ought to be very loath to touch a sermon, while the memory of what befell\nme on a recent occasion, possibly not yet forgotten by the readers of this\nReview, is uneffaced. But I suppose that even the distinguished censor of\nthat unheard-of audacity to which not even the newspaper report of a sermon\nis sacred, can hardly regard a man of science as either indelicate or\npresumptuous, if he ventures to offer some comments upon three discourses,\nspecially addressed to the great assemblage of men of science which\nrecently gathered at Manchester, by three bishops of the State Church. On\nmy return to England not long ago, I found a pamphlet[76] containing a\nversion, which I presume to be authorised, of these sermons, among the huge\nmass of letters and papers which had accumulated during two months'\nabsence; and I have read them not only {299} with attentive interest, but\nwith a feeling of satisfaction which is quite new to me as a result of\nhearing, or reading, sermons. These excellent discourses, in fact, appear\nto me to signalise a new departure in the course adopted by theology\ntowards science, and to indicate the possibility of bringing about an\nhonourable _modus vivendi_ between the two. How far the three bishops speak\nas accredited representatives of the Church is a question to be considered\nby and by. Most assuredly, I am not authorised to represent any one but\nmyself. But I suppose that there must be a good many people in the Church\nof the bishops' way of thinking; and I have reason to believe that, in the\nranks of science, there are a good many persons who, more or less, share my\nviews. And it is to these sensible people on both sides, as the bishops and\nI must needs think those who agree with us, that my present observations\nare addressed. They will probably be astonished to learn how insignificant,\nin principle, their differences are.\n\nIt is impossible to read the discourses of the three prelates without being\nimpressed by the knowledge which they display, and by the spirit of equity,\nI might say of generosity, towards science which pervades them. There is no\ntrace of that tacit or open assumption that the rejection of theological\ndogmas, on scientific grounds, is due to moral perversity, which is the\nordinary note of ecclesiastical homilies on this subject, and which makes\nthem look so supremely silly to men whose lives have been spent in\nwrestling with these questions. There is no attempt to hide {300} away real\nstumbling-blocks under rhetorical stucco; no resort to the _tu quoque_\ndevice of setting scientific blunders against theological errors; no\nsuggestion that an honest man may keep contradictory beliefs in separate\npockets of his brain; no question that the method of scientific\ninvestigation is valid, whatever the results to which it may lead; and that\nthe search after truth, and truth only, ennobles the searcher and leaves no\ndoubt that his life, at any rate, is worth living. The Bishop of Carlisle\ndeclares himself pledged to the belief that \"the advancement of science,\nthe progress of human knowledge, is in itself a worthy aim of the greatest\neffort of the greatest minds.\"\n\nHow often was it my fate, a quarter of a century ago, to see the whole\nartillery of the pulpit brought to bear upon the doctrine of evolution and\nits supporters! Any one unaccustomed to the amenities of ecclesiastical\ncontroversy would have thought we were too wicked to be permitted to live.\nBut let us hear the Bishop of Bedford. After a perfectly frank statement of\nthe doctrine of evolution and some of its obvious consequences, that\nlearned prelate pleads, with all earnestness, against\n\n    a hasty denunciation of what _may_ be proved to have at least some\n    elements of truth in it, a contemptuous rejection of theories which we\n    _may_ some day learn to accept as freely and with as little sense of\n    inconsistency with God's word as we now accept the theory of the\n    earth's motion round the sun, or the long duration of the geological\n    epochs (p. 28).\n\nI do not see that the most convinced evolutionist could ask any one,\nwhether cleric or layman, to say {301} more than this; in fact, I do not\nthink that any one has a right to say more, with respect to any question\nabout which two opinions can be held, than that his mind is perfectly open\nto the force of evidence.\n\nThere is another portion of the Bishop of Bedford's sermon which I think\nwill be warmly appreciated by all honest and clear-headed men. He\nrepudiates the views of those who say that theology and science\n\n    occupy wholly different spheres, and need in no way intermeddle with\n    each other. They revolve, as it were, in different planes, and so never\n    meet. Thus we may pursue scientific studies with the utmost freedom\n    and, at the same time, may pay the most reverent regard to theology,\n    having no fears of collision, because allowing no points of contact (p.\n    29).\n\nSurely every unsophisticated mind will heartily concur with the Bishop's\nremark upon this convenient refuge for the descendants of Mr.\nFacing-both-ways. \"I have never been able to understand this position,\nthough I have often seen it assumed.\" Nor can any demurrer be sustained\nwhen the Bishop proceeds to point out that there are, and must be, various\npoints of contact between theological and natural science, and therefore\nthat it is foolish to ignore or deny the existence of as many dangers of\ncollision.\n\nFinally, the Bishop of Manchester freely admits the force of the objections\nwhich have been raised, on scientific grounds, to prayer, and attempts to\nturn them by arguing that the proper objects of prayer are not physical but\nspiritual. He tells us that natural accidents and moral misfortunes are not\nto be taken {302} for moral judgments of God; he admits the propriety of\nthe application of scientific methods to the investigation of the origin\nand growth of religions; and he is as ready to recognise the process of\nevolution there, as in the physical world. Mark the following striking\npassage:--\n\n    And how utterly all the common objections to Divine revelation vanish\n    away when they are set in the light of this theory of a spiritual\n    progression. Are we reminded that there prevailed, in those earlier\n    days, views of the nature of God and man, of human life and Divine\n    Providence, which we now find to be untenable? _That_, we answer, is\n    precisely what the theory of development presupposes. If early views of\n    religion and morality had not been imperfect, where had been the\n    development? If symbolical visions and mythical creations had found no\n    place in the early Oriental expression of Divine truth, where had been\n    the development? The sufficient answer to ninety-nine out of a hundred\n    of the ordinary objections to the Bible, as the record of a divine\n    education of our race, is asked in that one word--development. And to\n    what are we indebted for that potent word, which, as with the wand of a\n    magician, has at the same moment so completely transformed our\n    knowledge and dispelled our difficulties? To modern science, resolutely\n    pursuing its search for truth in spite of popular obloquy and--alas!\n    that one should have to say it--in spite too often of theological\n    denunciation (p. 53).\n\nApart from its general importance, I read this remarkable statement with\nthe more pleasure, since, however imperfectly I may have endeavoured to\nillustrate the evolution of theology in a paper published in this Review\nlast year, it seems to me that in principle, at any rate, I may hereafter\nclaim high theological sanction for the views there set forth. {303}\n\nIf theologians are henceforward prepared to recognise the authority of\nsecular science in the manner and to the extent indicated in the Manchester\ntrilogy; if the distinguished prelates who offer these terms are really\nplenipotentiaries, then, so far as I may presume to speak on such a matter,\nthere will be no difficulty about concluding a perpetual treaty of peace,\nand indeed of alliance, between the high contracting powers, whose history\nhas hitherto been little more than a record of continual warfare. But if\nthe great Chancellor's maxim, \"Do ut des,\" is to form the basis of\nnegotiation, I am afraid that secular science will be ruined; for it seems\nto me that theology, under the generous impulse of a sudden conversion, has\ngiven all that she hath; and indeed, on one point, has surrendered more\nthan can reasonably be asked.\n\nI suppose I must be prepared to face the reproach which attaches to those\nwho criticise a gift, if I venture to observe that I do not think that the\nBishop of Manchester need have been so much alarmed, as he evidently has\nbeen, by the objections which have often been raised to prayer, on the\nground that a belief in the efficacy of prayer is inconsistent with a\nbelief in the constancy of the order of nature.\n\nThe Bishop appears to admit that there is an antagonism between the\n\"regular economy of nature\" and the \"regular economy of prayer\" (p. 39),\nand that \"prayers for the interruption of God's natural order\" are of\n\"doubtful validity\" (p. 42). It appears to me that the Bishop's difficulty\nsimply adds another example to those which I have several times insisted\n{304} upon in the pages of this Review and elsewhere, of the mischief which\nhas been done, and is being done, by a mistaken apprehension of the real\nmeaning of \"natural order\" and \"law of nature.\"\n\nMay I, therefore, be permitted to repeat, once more, that the statements\ndenoted by these terms have no greater value or cogency than such as may\nattach to generalisations from experience of the past, and to expectations\nfor the future based upon that experience? Nobody can presume to say what\nthe order of nature must be; all that the widest experience (even if it\nextended over all past time and through all space) that events had happened\nin a certain way could justify, would be a proportionally strong\nexpectation that events will go on so happening, and the demand for a\nproportional strength of evidence in favour of any assertion that they had\nhappened otherwise.\n\nIt is this weighty consideration, the truth of which every one who is\ncapable of logical thought must surely admit, which knocks the bottom out\nof all _a priori_ objections either to ordinary \"miracles\" or to the\nefficacy of prayer, in so far as the latter implies the miraculous\nintervention of a higher power. No one is entitled to say _a priori_ that\nany given so-called miraculous event is impossible; and no one is entitled\nto say _a priori_ that prayer for some change in the ordinary course of\nnature cannot possibly avail.\n\nThe supposition that there is any inconsistency between the acceptance of\nthe constancy of natural {305} order and a belief in the efficacy of\nprayer, is the more unaccountable as it is obviously contradicted by\nanalogies furnished by everyday experience. The belief in the efficacy of\nprayer depends upon the assumption that there is somebody, somewhere, who\nis strong enough to deal with the earth and its contents as men deal with\nthe things and events which they are strong enough to modify or control;\nand who is capable of being moved by appeals such as men make to one\nanother. This belief does not even involve theism; for our earth is an\ninsignificant particle of the solar system, while the solar system is\nhardly worth speaking of in relation to the All; and, for anything that can\nbe proved to the contrary, there may be beings endowed with full powers\nover our system, yet, practically, as insignificant as ourselves in\nrelation to the universe. If any one pleases, therefore, to give\nunrestrained liberty to his fancy, he may plead analogy in favour of the\ndream that there may be, somewhere, a finite being, or beings, who can play\nwith the solar system as a child plays with a toy; and that such being may\nbe willing to do anything which he is properly supplicated to do. For we\nare not justified in saying that it is impossible for beings having the\nnature of men, only vastly more powerful, to exist; and if they do exist,\nthey may act as and when we ask them to do so, just as our brother men act.\nAs a matter of fact, the great mass of the human race has believed, and\nstill believes, in such beings, under the various names of fairies, gnomes,\nangels, and demons. Certainly I do {306} not lack faith in the constancy of\nnatural order. But I am not less convinced that if I were to ask the Bishop\nof Manchester to do me a kindness which lay within his power, he would do\nit. And I am unable to see that his action on my request involves any\nviolation of the order of nature. On the contrary, as I have not the honour\nto know the Bishop personally, my action would be based upon my faith in\nthat \"law of nature,\" or generalisation from experience, which tells me\nthat, as a rule, men who occupy the Bishop's position are kindly and\ncourteous. How is the case altered if my request is preferred to some\nimaginary superior being, or to the Most High Being, who, by the\nsupposition, is able to arrest disease, or make the sun stand still in the\nheavens, just as easily as I can stop my watch, or make it indicate any\nhour that pleases me?\n\nI repeat that it is not upon any _a priori_ considerations that objections,\neither to the supposed efficacy of prayer in modifying the course of\nevents, or to the supposed occurrence of miracles, can be scientifically\nbased. The real objection, and, to my mind, the fatal objection, to both\nthese suppositions, is the inadequacy of the evidence to prove any given\ncase of such occurrences which has been adduced. It is a canon of common\nsense, to say nothing of science, that the more improbable a supposed\noccurrence, the more cogent ought to be the evidence in its favour. I have\nlooked somewhat carefully into the subject, and I am unable to find in the\nrecords of any miraculous event evidence {307} which even approximates to\nthe fulfilment of this requirement.\n\nBut, in the case of prayer, the Bishop points out a most just and necessary\ndistinction between its effect on the course of nature, outside ourselves,\nand its effect within the region of the supplicator's mind.\n\nIt is a \"law of nature,\" verifiable by everyday experience, that our\nalready formed convictions, our strong desires, our intent occupation with\nparticular ideas, modify our mental operations to a most marvellous extent,\nand produce enduring changes in the direction and in the intensity of our\nintellectual and moral activities. Men can intoxicate themselves with ideas\nas effectually as with alcohol or with bang, and produce, by dint of\nintense thinking, mental conditions hardly distinguishable from monomania.\nDemoniac possession is mythical; but the faculty of being possessed, more\nor less completely, by an idea is probably the fundamental condition of\nwhat is called genius, whether it show itself in the saint, the artist, or\nthe man of science. One calls it faith, another calls it inspiration, a\nthird calls it insight; but the \"intending of the mind,\" to borrow Newton's\nwell-known phrase, the concentration of all the rays of intellectual energy\non some one point, until it glows and colours the whole cast of thought\nwith its peculiar light, is common to all.\n\nI take it that the Bishop of Manchester has psychological science with him\nwhen he insists upon the subjective efficacy of prayer in faith, and on the\n{308} seemingly miraculous effects which such \"intending of the mind\" upon\nreligious and moral ideals may have upon character and happiness.\nScientific faith, at present, takes it no further than the prayer which\nAjax offered; but that petition is continually granted.\n\nWhatever points of detail may yet remain open for discussion, however, I\nrepeat the opinion I have already expressed, that the Manchester sermons\nconcede all that science has an indisputable right, or any pressing need,\nto ask, and that not grudgingly but generously; and, if the three bishops\nof 1887 carry the Church with them, I think they will have as good title to\nthe permanent gratitude of posterity as the famous seven who went to the\nTower in defence of the Church two hundred years ago.\n\nWill their brethren follow their just and prudent guidance? I have no such\nacquaintance with the currents of ecclesiastical opinion as would justify\nme in even hazarding a guess on such a difficult topic. But some recent\nomens are hardly favourable. There seems to be an impression abroad--I do\nnot desire to give any countenance to it--that I am fond of reading\nsermons. From time to time, unknown correspondents--some apparently\nanimated by the charitable desire to promote my conversion, and others\nunmistakably anxious to spur me to the expression of wrathful\nantagonism--favour me with reports or copies of such productions.\n\nI found one of the latter category among the accumulated arrears to which I\nhave already referred.\n\nIt is a full, and apparently accurate, report of a {309} discourse by a\nperson of no less ecclesiastical rank than the three authors of the sermons\nI have hitherto been considering; but who he is, and where or when the\nsermon was preached, are secrets which wild horses shall not tear from me,\nlest I fall again under high censure for attacking a clergyman. Only if the\neditor of this Review thinks it his duty to have independent evidence that\nthe sermon has a real existence, will I, in the strictest confidence,\ncommunicate it to him.\n\nThe preacher, in this case, is of a very different mind from the three\nbishops--and this mind is different in quality, different in spirit, and\ndifferent in contents. He discourses on the _a priori_ objections to\nmiracles, apparently without being aware, in spite of all the discussions\nof the last seven or eight years, that he is doing battle with a shadow.\n\nI trust I do not misrepresent the Bishop of Manchester in saying that the\nessence of his remarkable discourse is the insistence upon the \"supreme\nimportance of the purely spiritual in our faith,\" and of the relative, if\nnot absolute, insignificance of aught else. He obviously perceives the\nbearing of his arguments against the alterability of the course of outward\nnature by prayer, on the question of miracles in general; for he is careful\nto say that \"the possibility of miracles, of a rare and unusual\ntranscendence of the world order is not here in question\" (p. 38). It may\nbe permitted me to suppose, however, that, if miracles were in question,\nthe speaker who warns us \"that we must look for the heart of the absolute\n{310} religion in that part of it which prescribes our moral and religious\nrelations\" (p. 46) would not be disposed to advise those who had found the\nheart of Christianity to take much thought about its miraculous integument.\n\nMy anonymous sermon will have nothing to do with such notions as these, and\nits preacher is not too polite, to say nothing of charitable, towards those\nwho entertain them.\n\n    Scientific men, therefore, are perfectly right in asserting that\n    Christianity rests on miracles. If miracles never happened,\n    Christianity, in any sense which is not a mockery, which does not make\n    the term of none effect, has no reality. I dwell on this because there\n    is now an effort making to get up a non-miraculous, invertebrate\n    Christianity, which may escape the ban of science. And I would warn you\n    very distinctly against this new contrivance. Christianity is\n    essentially miraculous, and falls to the ground if miracles be\n    impossible.\n\nWell, warning for warning. I venture to warn this preacher and those who,\nwith him, persist in identifying Christianity with the miraculous, that\nsuch forms of Christianity are not only doomed to fall to the ground; but\nthat, within the last half century, they have been driving that way with\ncontinually accelerated velocity.\n\nThe so-called religious world is given to a strange delusion. It fondly\nimagines that it possesses the monopoly of serious and constant reflection\nupon the terrible problems of existence; and that those who cannot accept\nits shibboleths are either mere Gallios, caring for none of these things,\nor libertines desiring to escape from the restraints of morality. It does\nnot {311} appear to have entered the imaginations of these people that,\noutside their pale and firmly resolved never to enter it, there are\nthousands of men, certainly not their inferiors in character, capacity, or\nknowledge of the questions at issue, who estimate those purely spiritual\nelements of the Christian faith of which the Bishop of Manchester speaks as\nhighly as the Bishop does; but who will have nothing to do with the\nChristian Churches, because in their apprehension and for them, the\nprofession of belief in the miraculous, on the evidence offered, would be\nsimply immoral.\n\nSo far as my experience goes, men of science are neither better nor worse\nthan the rest of the world. Occupation with the endlessly great parts of\nthe universe does not necessarily involve greatness of character, nor does\nmicroscopic study of the infinitely little always produce humility. We have\nour full share of original sin; need, greed, and vainglory beset us as they\ndo other mortals; and our progress is, for the most part, like that of a\ntacking ship, the resultant of opposite divergencies from the straight\npath. But, for all that, there is one moral benefit which the pursuit of\nscience unquestionably bestows. It keeps the estimate of the value of\nevidence up to the proper mark; and we are constantly receiving lessons,\nand sometimes very sharp ones, on the nature of proof. Men of science will\nalways act up to their standard of veracity, when mankind in general leave\noff sinning; but that standard appears to me to be higher among them than\nin any other class of the community. {312}\n\nI do not know any body of scientific men who could be got to listen without\nthe strongest expressions of disgusted repudiation to the exposition of a\npretended scientific discovery, which had no better evidence to show for\nitself than the story of the devils entering a herd of swine, or of the\nfig-tree that was blasted for bearing no figs when \"it was not the season\nof figs.\" Whether such events are possible or impossible, no man can say;\nbut scientific ethics can and does declare that the profession of belief in\nthem, on the evidence of documents of unknown date and of unknown\nauthorship, is immoral. Theological apologists who insist that morality\nwill vanish if their dogmas are exploded, would do well to consider the\nfact that, in the matter of intellectual veracity, science is already a\nlong way ahead of the Churches; and that, in this particular, it is\nexerting an educational influence on mankind of which the Churches have\nshown themselves utterly incapable.\n\nUndoubtedly that varying compound of some of the best and some of the worst\nelements of Paganism and Judaism, moulded in practice by the innate\ncharacter of certain people of the Western world, which, since the second\ncentury, has assumed to itself the title of orthodox Christianity, \"rests\non miracles\" and falls to the ground, not \"if miracles be impossible,\" but\nif those to whom it is committed prove themselves unable to fulfil the\nconditions of honest belief. That this Christianity is doomed to fall is,\nto my mind, beyond a doubt; but its fall will be neither sudden nor speedy.\nThe Church, with all the aid {313} lent it by the secular arm, took many\ncenturies to extirpate the open practice of pagan idolatry within its own\nfold; and those who have travelled in southern Europe will be aware that it\nhas not extirpated the essence of such idolatry even yet. _Mutato nomine_,\nit is probable that there is as much sheer fetichism among the Roman\npopulace now as there was eighteen hundred years ago; and if Marcus\nAntoninus could descend from his horse and ascend the steps of the Ara\nCoeli church about Twelfth Day, the only thing that need strike him would\nbe the extremely contemptible character of the modern idols as works of\nart.\n\nScience will certainly neither ask for, nor receive, the aid of the secular\narm. It will trust to the much better and more powerful help of that\neducation in scientific truth and in the morals of assent, which is\nrendered as indispensable, as it is inevitable, by the permeation of\npractical life with the products and ideas of science. But no one who\nconsiders the present state of even the most developed countries can doubt\nthat the scientific light that has come into the world will, for a long\ntime, have to shine in the midst of darkness. The urban populations, driven\ninto contact with science by trade and manufacture, will more and more\nreceive it, while the _pagani_ will lag behind. Let us hope that no Julian\nmay arise among them to head a forlorn hope against the inevitable.\nWhatever happens, science may bide her time in patience and in confidence.\n\nBut to return to my \"Anonymous.\" I am afraid {314} that if he represents\nany great party in the Church, the spirit of justice and reasonableness\nwhich animates the three bishops has as slender a chance of being imitated,\non a large scale, as their common sense and their courtesy. For, not\ncontented with misrepresenting science on its speculative side, \"Anonymous\"\nattacks its morality.\n\n    For two whole years, investigations and conclusions which would upset\n    the theories of Darwin on the formation of coral islands were actually\n    suppressed, and that by the advice even of those who accepted them,\n    _for fear of upsetting the faith and disturbing the judgment formed by\n    the multitude on the scientific character--the infallibility--of the\n    great master!_\n\nSo far as I know anything about the matters which are here referred to, the\npart of this passage which I have italicised is absolutely untrue. I\nbelieve that I am intimately acquainted with all Mr. Darwin's immediate\nscientific friends; and I say that no one of them, nor any other man of\nscience known to me, ever could, or would, have given such advice to any\none--if for no other reason than that, with the example of the most candid\nand patient listener to objections that ever lived fresh in their memories,\nthey could not so grossly have at once violated their highest duty and\ndishonoured their friend.\n\nThe charge thus brought by \"Anonymous\" affects the honour and the probity\nof men of science; if it is true, we have forfeited all claim to the\nconfidence of the general public. In my belief it is utterly false, and its\nreal effect will be to discredit those who are responsible for it. As is\nthe way with slanders, it {315} has grown by repetition. \"Anonymous\" is\nresponsible for the peculiarly offensive form which it has taken in his\nhands; but he is not responsible for originating it. He has evidently been\ninspired by an article entitled \"A Great Lesson,\" published in the\nSeptember number of this Review. Truly it is \"a great lesson,\" but not\nquite in the sense intended by the giver thereof.\n\nIn the course of his doubtless well-meant admonitions, the Duke of Argyll\ncommits himself to a greater number of statements which are demonstrably\nincorrect, and which any one who ventured to write upon the subject ought\nto have known to be incorrect, than I have ever seen gathered together in\nso small a space.\n\nI submit a gathering from the rich store for the appreciation of the\npublic.\n\nFirst:--\n\n    Mr. Murray's new explanation of the structure of coral-reefs and\n    islands was communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1880, and\n    supported with such a weight of facts and such a close texture of\n    reasoning, that no serious reply has ever been attempted (p. 305).\n\n\"No serious reply has ever been attempted\"! I suppose that the Duke of\nArgyll may have heard of Professor Dana, whose years of labour devoted to\ncorals and coral-reefs when he was naturalist of the American expedition\nunder Commodore Wilkes, more than forty years ago, have ever since caused\nhim to be recognised as an authority of the first rank on such subjects.\nNow does his Grace know, or does he not {316} know, that, in the year 1885,\nProfessor Dana published an elaborate paper \"On the Origin of Coral-Reefs\nand Islands,\" in which, after referring to a presidential address by the\nDirector of the Geological Survey of Great Britain and Ireland delivered in\n1883, in which special attention is directed to Mr. Murray's views,\nProfessor Dana says:--\n\n    The existing state of doubt on the question has led the writer to\n    reconsider the earlier and later facts, and in the following pages he\n    gives his results.\n\nProfessor Dana then devotes many pages of his very \"serious reply\" to a\nmost admirable and weighty criticism of the objections which have at\nvarious times been raised to Mr. Darwin's doctrine, by Professor Semper, by\nDr. Rein, and finally by Mr. Murray, and he states his final judgment as\nfollows:--\n\n    With the theory of abrasion and solution incompetent, all the\n    hypotheses of objectors to Darwin's theory are alike weak; for all have\n    made these processes their chief reliance, whether appealing to a\n    calcareous, or a volcanic, or a mountain-peak basement for the\n    structure. The subsidence which the Darwinian theory requires has not\n    been opposed by the mention of any fact at variance with it, nor by\n    setting aside Darwin's arguments in its favour; and it has found new\n    support in the facts from the _Challenger's_ soundings off Tahiti, that\n    had been put in array against it, and strong corroboration in the facts\n    from the West Indies.\n\n    Darwin's theory, therefore, remains as the theory that accounts for the\n    origin of reefs and islands.[77]\n\nBe it understood that I express no opinion on the controverted points. I\ndoubt if there are ten living men who, having a practical knowledge of what\na {317} coral-reef is, have endeavoured to master the very difficult\nbiological and geological problems involved in their study. I happen to\nhave spent the best part of three years among coral-reefs and to have made\nthat attempt; and, when Mr. Murray's work appeared, I said to myself that\nuntil I had two or three months to give to the renewed study of the subject\nin all its bearings, I must be content to remain in a condition of\nsuspended judgment. In the meanwhile, the man who would be voted by common\nacclamation as the most competent person now living to act as umpire, has\ndelivered the verdict I have quoted; and, to go no further, has fully\njustified the hesitation I and others may have felt about expressing an\nopinion. Under these circumstances, it seems to me to require a good deal\nof courage to say \"no serious reply has ever been attempted\"; and to chide\nthe men of science, in lofty tones, for their \"reluctance to admit an\nerror\" which is not admitted; and for their \"slow and sulky acquiescence\"\nin a conclusion which they have the gravest warranty for suspecting!\n\nSecond:--\n\n    Darwin himself had lived to hear of the new solution, and, with that\n    splendid candour which was eminent in him, his mind, though now grown\n    old in his own early convictions, was at least ready to entertain it,\n    and to confess that serious doubts had been awakened as to the truth of\n    his famous theory (p. 305).\n\nI wish that Darwin's splendid candour could be conveyed by some description\nof spiritual \"microbe\" to those who write about him. I am not aware that\nMr. Darwin ever entertained \"serious doubts as to {318} the truth of his\nfamous theory\"; and there is tolerably good evidence to the contrary. The\nsecond edition of his work, published in 1876, proves that he entertained\nno such doubts then; a letter to Professor Semper, whose objections, in\nsome respects, forestalled those of Mr. Murray, dated October 2, 1879,\nexpresses his continued adherence to the opinion \"that the atolls and\nbarrier reefs in the middle of the Pacific and Indian Oceans indicate\nsubsidence\"; and the letter of my friend Professor Judd, printed at the end\nof this article (which I had perhaps better say Professor Judd had not\nseen) will prove that this opinion remained unaltered to the end of his\nlife.\n\nThird:--\n\n    ... Darwin's theory is a dream. It is not only unsound, but it is in\n    many respects the reverse of truth. With all his conscientiousness,\n    with all his caution, with all his powers of observation, Darwin in\n    this matter fell into errors as profound as the abysses of the Pacific\n    (p. 301).\n\nReally? It seems to me that, under the circumstances, it is pretty clear\nthat these lines exhibit a lack of the qualities justly ascribed to Mr.\nDarwin, which plunges their author into a much deeper abyss, and one from\nwhich there is no hope of emergence.\n\nFourth:--\n\n    All the acclamations with which it was received were as the shouts of\n    an ignorant mob (p. 301).\n\nBut surely it should be added that the Coryphaeus of this ignorant mob, the\nfugleman of the shouts, was one of the most accomplished naturalists and\ngeologists now living--the American Dana--who, after years of {319}\nindependent study extending over numerous reefs in the Pacific, gave his\nhearty assent to Darwin's views, and, after all that had been said,\ndeliberately reaffirmed that assent in the year 1885.\n\nFifth:--\n\n    The overthrow of Darwin's speculation is only beginning to be known. It\n    has been whispered for some time. The cherished dogma has been dropping\n    very slowly out of sight (p. 301).\n\nDarwin's speculation may be right or wrong, but I submit that that which\nhas not happened cannot even begin to be known, except by those who have\nmiraculous gifts to which we poor scientific people do not aspire. The\noverthrow of Darwin's views may have been whispered by those who hoped for\nit; and they were perhaps wise in not raising their voices above a whisper.\nIncorrect statements, if made too loudly, are apt to bring about unpleasant\nconsequences.\n\nSixth. Mr. Murray's views, published in 1880, are said to have met with\n\"slow and sulky acquiescence\" (p. 305). I have proved that they cannot be\nsaid to have met with general acquiescence of any sort, whether quick and\ncheerful, or slow and sulky; and if this assertion is meant to convey the\nimpression that Mr. Murray's views have been ignored, that there has been a\nconspiracy of silence against them, it is utterly contrary to notorious\nfact.\n\nProfessor Geikie's well-known _Textbook of Geology_ was published in 1882,\nand at pages 457-459 of that work there is a careful exposition of Mr.\nMurray's views. Moreover, Professor Geikie has specially {320} advocated\nthem on other occasions,[78] notably in a long article on \"The Origin of\nCoral-Reefs,\" published in two numbers of _Nature_ for 1883, and in a\npresidential address delivered in the same year. If, in so short a time\nafter the publication of his views, Mr. Murray could boast of a convert so\ndistinguished and influential as the Director of the Geological Survey, it\nseems to me that this wonderful _conspiration de silence_ (which has about\nas much real existence as the Duke of Argyll's other bogie, \"the Reign of\nTerror\") must have _ipso facto_ collapsed. I wish that, when I was a young\nman, my endeavours to upset some prevalent errors had met with as speedy\nand effectual backing.\n\nSeventh:--\n\n    ... Mr. John Murray was strongly advised against the publication of his\n    views in derogation of Darwin's long-accepted theory of the coral\n    islands, and was actually induced to delay it for two years. Yet the\n    late Sir Wyville Thomson, who was at the head of the naturalists of the\n    _Challenger_ expedition, was himself convinced by Mr. Murray's\n    reasoning (p. 307).\n\nClearly, then, it could not be Mr. Murray's official chief who gave him\nthis advice. Who was it? And what was the exact nature of the advice given?\nUntil we have some precise information on this head, I shall take leave to\ndoubt whether this statement is more accurate than those which I have\npreviously cited.\n\nWhether such advice was wise or foolish, just or {321} immoral, depends\nentirely on the motive of the person who gave it. If he meant to suggest to\nMr. Murray that it might be wise for a young and comparatively unknown man\nto walk warily, when he proposed to attack a generalisation based on many\nyears' labour of one undoubtedly competent person, and fortified by the\nindependent results of the many years' labour of another undoubtedly\ncompetent person; and even, if necessary, to take two whole years in\nfortifying his position, I think that such advice would have been sagacious\nand kind. I suppose that there are few working men of science who have not\nkept their ideas to themselves, while gathering and sifting evidence, for a\nmuch longer period than two years.\n\nIf, on the other hand, Mr. Murray was advised to delay the publication of\nhis criticisms, simply to save Mr. Darwin's credit and to preserve some\nreputation for infallibility, which no one ever heard of, then I have no\nhesitation in declaring that his adviser was profoundly dishonest, as well\nas extremely foolish, and that, if he is a man of science, he has disgraced\nhis calling.\n\nBut, after all, this supposed scientific Achitophel has not yet made good\nthe primary fact of his existence. Until the needful proof is forthcoming,\nI think I am justified in suspending my judgment as to whether he is much\nmore than an anti-scientific myth. I leave it to the Duke of Argyll to\njudge of the extent of the obligation under which, for his own sake, he may\nlie to produce the evidence on which {322} his aspersions of the honour of\nscientific men are based. I cannot pretend that we are seriously disturbed\nby charges which every one who is acquainted with the truth of the matter\nknows to be ridiculous; but mud has a habit of staining if it lies too\nlong, and it is as well to have it brushed off as soon as may be.\n\nSo much for the \"Great Lesson.\" It is followed by a \"Little Lesson,\"\napparently directed against my infallibility--a doctrine about which I\nshould be inclined to paraphrase Wilkes's remark to George the Third, when\nhe declared that he, at any rate, was not a Wilkite. But I really should be\nglad to think that there are people who need the warning, because then it\nwill be obvious that this raking up of an old story cannot have been\nsuggested by a mere fanatical desire to damage men of science. I can but\nrejoice, then, that these misguided enthusiasts, whose faith in me has so\nfar exceeded the bounds of reason, should be set right. But that \"want of\nfinish\" in the matter of accuracy which so terribly mars the effect of the\n\"Great Lesson,\" is no less conspicuous in the case of the \"Little Lesson,\"\nand, instead of setting my too fervent disciples right, it will set them\nwrong.\n\nThe Duke of Argyll, in telling the story of _Bathybius_, says that my mind\nwas \"caught by this new and grand generalisation of the physical basis of\nlife.\" I never have been guilty of a reclamation about anything to my\ncredit, and I do not mean to be; but if there is any blame going, I do not\nchoose to be relegated to a subordinate place when I have a claim to {323}\nthe first. The responsibility for the first description and the naming of\n_Bathybius_ is mine and mine only. The paper on \"Some Organisms living at\ngreat depths in the Atlantic Ocean,\" in which I drew attention to this\nsubstance, is to be found by the curious in the 8th volume of the\n_Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science_, and was published in the year\n1868. Whatever errors are contained in that paper are my own peculiar\nproperty; but neither at the meeting of the British Association in 1868,\nnor anywhere else, have I gone beyond what is there stated; except in so\nfar that, at a long-subsequent meeting of the Association, being importuned\nabout the subject, I ventured to express, somewhat emphatically, the wish\nthat the thing was at the bottom of the sea.\n\nWhat is meant by my being caught by a generalisation about the physical\nbasis of life I do not know; still less can I understand the assertion that\n_Bathybius_ was accepted because of its supposed harmony with Darwin's\nspeculations. That which interested me in the matter was the apparent\nanalogy of _Bathybius_ with other well-known forms of lower life, such as\nthe plasmodia of the Myxomycetes and the Rhizopods. Speculative hopes or\nfears had nothing to do with the matter; and if _Bathybius_ were brought up\nalive from the bottom of the Atlantic to-morrow, the fact would not have\nthe slightest bearing, that I can discern, upon Mr. Darwin's speculations,\nor upon any of the disputed problems of biology. It would merely be one\nelementary organism the more added to the thousands already known. {324}\n\nUp to this moment I was not aware of the universal favour with which\n_Bathybius_ was received.[79] Those simulators of an \"ignorant mob\" who,\naccording to the Duke of Argyll, welcomed Darwin's theory of coral-reefs,\nmade no demonstration in my favour, unless his Grace includes Sir Wyville\nThomson, Dr. Carpenter, Dr. Bessels, and Professor Haeckel under that head.\nOn the contrary, a sagacious friend of mine, than whom there was no more\ncompetent judge, the late Mr. George Busk, was not to be converted; while,\nlong before the _Challenger_ work, Ehrenberg wrote to me very sceptically;\nand I fully expected that that eminent man would favour me with pretty\nsharp criticism. Unfortunately he died shortly afterwards, and nothing from\nhim, that I know of, appeared. When Sir Wyville Thomson wrote to me a brief\naccount of the results obtained on board the _Challenger_, I sent his\nstatement to _Nature_, in which journal it appeared the following week,\nwithout any further note or comment than was needful to explain the\ncircumstances. In thus allowing judgment to go by default, I am afraid I\nshowed a reckless and ungracious disregard for the feelings of the\nbelievers in my infallibility. No doubt I ought to have hedged and fenced\nand attenuated the effect of Sir Wyville Thomson's brief note in every\npossible way. Or {325} perhaps I ought to have suppressed the note\naltogether, on the ground that it was a mere _ex parte_ statement. My\nexcuse is that, notwithstanding a large and abiding faith in human folly, I\ndid not know then, any more than I know now, that there was anybody foolish\nenough to be unaware that the only people, scientific or other, who never\nmake mistakes are those who do nothing; or that anybody, for whose opinion\nI cared, would not rather see me commit ten blunders than try to hide one.\n\nPending the production of further evidence, I hold that the existence of\npeople who believe in the infallibility of men of science is as purely\nmythical as that of the evil counsellor who advised the withholding of the\ntruth lest it should conflict with that belief.\n\nI venture to think, then, that the Duke of Argyll might have spared his\n\"Little Lesson\" as well as his \"Great Lesson\" with advantage. The paternal\nauthority who whips the child for sins he has not committed does not\nstrengthen his moral influence--rather excites contempt and repugnance. And\nif, as would seem from this and former monitory allocutions which have been\naddressed to us, the Duke aspires to the position of censor, or spiritual\ndirector, in relation to the men who are doing the work of physical\nscience, he really must get up his facts better. There will be an end to\nall chance of our kissing the rod if his Grace goes wrong a third time. He\nmust not say again that \"no serious reply has been attempted\" to a view\nwhich was discussed and {326} repudiated, two years before, by one of the\nhighest extant authorities on the subject; he must not say that Darwin\naccepted that which it can be proved he did not accept; he must not say\nthat a doctrine has dropped into the abyss when it is quite obviously alive\nand kicking at the surface; he must not assimilate a man like Professor\nDana to the components of an \"ignorant mob\"; he must not say that things\nare beginning to be known which are not known at all; he must not say that\n\"slow and sulky acquiescence\" has been given to that which cannot yet boast\nof general acquiescence of any kind; he must not suggest that a view which\nhas been publicly advocated by the Director of the Geological Survey and no\nless publicly discussed by many other authoritative writers has been\nintentionally and systematically ignored; he must not ascribe ill motives\nfor a course of action which is the only proper one; and finally, if any\none but myself were interested, I should say that he had better not waste\nhis time in raking up the errors of those whose lives have been occupied,\nnot in talking about science, but in toiling, sometimes with success and\nsometimes with failure, to get some real work done.\n\nThe most considerable difference I note among men is not in their readiness\nto fall into error, but in their readiness to acknowledge these inevitable\nlapses. The Duke of Argyll has now a splendid opportunity for proving to\nthe world in which of these categories it is hereafter to rank him.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{327}\n\nDEAR PROFESSOR HUXLEY--A short time before Mr. Darwin's death, I had a\nconversation with him concerning the observations which had been made by\nMr. Murray upon coral-reefs, and the speculations which had been founded\nupon those observations. I found that Mr. Darwin had very carefully\nconsidered the whole subject, and that while, on the one hand, he did not\nregard the actual facts recorded by Mr. Murray as absolutely inconsistent\nwith his own theory of subsidence, on the other hand, he did not believe\nthat they necessitated or supported the hypothesis advanced by Mr. Murray.\nMr. Darwin's attitude, as I understood it, towards Mr. Murray's objections\nto the theory of subsidence was exactly similar to that maintained by him\nwith respect to Professor Semper's criticism, which was of a very similar\ncharacter; and his position with regard to the whole question was almost\nidentical with that subsequently so clearly defined by Professor Dana in\nhis well-known articles published in the _American Journal of Science_ for\n1885.\n\nIt is difficult to imagine how any one, acquainted with the scientific\nliterature of the last seven years, could possibly suggest that Mr.\nMurray's memoir published in 1880 had failed to secure a due amount of\nattention. Mr. Murray, by his position in the _Challenger_ office, occupied\nan exceptionally favourable position for making his views widely known; and\nhe had, moreover, the singular good fortune to secure from the first the\nadvocacy of so able and brilliant a writer as Professor Archibald Geikie,\nwho {328} in a special discourse and in several treatises on geology and\nphysical geology very strongly supported the new theory. It would be an\nendless task to attempt to give references to the various scientific\njournals which have discussed the subject, but I may add that every\ntreatise on geology which has been published, since Mr. Murray's views were\nmade known, has dealt with his observations at considerable length. This is\ntrue of Professor A. H. Green's _Physical Geology_, published in 1882; of\nProfessor Prestwich's _Geology, Chemical and Physical_; and of Professor\nJames Geikie's _Outlines of Geology_, published in 1886. Similar prominence\nis given to the subject in De Lapparent's _Traite de Geologie_, published\nin 1885, and in Credner's _Elemente der Geologie_, which has appeared\nduring the present year. If this be a \"conspiracy of silence,\" where, alas!\ncan the geological speculator seek for fame?--Yours very truly,\n\n  JOHN W. JUDD.\n  _October 10, 1887._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{329}\n\nIX\n\nAGNOSTICISM\n\nWithin the last few months the public has received much and varied\ninformation on the subject of agnostics, their tenets, and even their\nfuture. Agnosticism exercised the orators of the Church Congress at\nManchester.[80] It has been furnished with a set of \"articles\" fewer, but\nnot less rigid, and certainly not less consistent than the thirty-nine; its\nnature has been analysed, and its future severely predicted by the most\neloquent of that prophetical school whose Samuel is Auguste Comte. It may\nstill be a question, however, whether the public is as much the wiser as\nmight be expected, considering all the trouble that has been taken to\nenlighten it. Not only are the three accounts of the agnostic position\nsadly out of harmony with one another, but I propose to show cause for my\nbelief that all three must be seriously questioned by any one who employs\nthe term \"agnostic\" in the sense in which it was originally used. The\nlearned Principal of King's College, who brought {330} the topic of\nAgnosticism before the Church Congress, took a short and easy way of\nsettling the business:--\n\n    But if this be so, for a man to urge, as an escape from this article of\n    belief, that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of the unseen\n    world, or of the future, is irrelevant. His difference from Christians\n    lies not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that\n    he does not believe the authority on which they are stated. He may\n    prefer to call himself an Agnostic; but his real name is an older\n    one--he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever. The word infidel,\n    perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance. Perhaps it is right that\n    it should. It is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to\n    have to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ.[81]\n\nSo much of Dr. Wace's address either explicitly or implicitly concerns me,\nthat I take upon myself to deal with it; but, in so doing, it must be\nunderstood that I speak for myself alone. I am not aware that there is any\nsect of Agnostics; and if there be, I am not its acknowledged prophet or\npope. I desire to leave to the Comtists the entire monopoly of the\nmanufacture 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 he\nhas no means of attaining a scientific knowledge of the unseen world or of\nthe future; by which somewhat loose {331} phraseology Dr. Wace presumably\nmeans the theological unseen world and future. I cannot think this\ndescription happy, either in form or substance, but for the present it may\npass. Dr. Wace continues, that is not \"his difference from Christians.\" Are\nthere then any Christians who say that they know nothing about the unseen\nworld and the future? I was ignorant of the fact, but I am ready to accept\nit on the authority of a professional theologian, and I proceed to Dr.\nWace'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 Jesus\nChrist. He is simply an old-fashioned \"infidel\" who is afraid to own to his\nright name. As \"Presbyter is priest writ large,\" so is \"agnostic\" the mere\nGreek equivalent for the Latin \"infidel.\" There is an attractive simplicity\nabout this solution of the problem; and it has that advantage of being\nsomewhat offensive to the persons attacked, which is so dear to the less\nrefined sort of controversialist. The agnostic says, \"I cannot find good\nevidence that so and so is true.\" \"Ah,\" says his adversary, seizing his\nopportunity, \"then you declare that Jesus Christ was untruthful, for he\nsaid so and so;\" a very telling method of rousing prejudice. But suppose\nthat the value of the evidence as to what Jesus may have said and done, and\nas to the exact nature and scope of his authority, is just that which the\nagnostic finds it most difficult to determine. If I venture to doubt that\nthe Duke of Wellington gave the command \"Up, Guards, {332} and at 'em!\" at\nWaterloo, I do not think that even Dr. Wace would accuse me of disbelieving\nthe Duke. Yet it would be just as reasonable to do this as to accuse any\none of denying what Jesus said before the preliminary question as to what\nhe did 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 than\nthose practised by the historian and the literary critic. It is a problem\nof immense difficulty, which has occupied some of the best heads in Europe\nfor the last century; and it is only of late years that their\ninvestigations have begun to converge towards one conclusion.[82]\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 {333}\nfaith in the declarations and assurances of Jesus Christ and His Apostles\"\n(_l. c._ p. 253). The triumphant tone of this imaginary catechism leads me\nto suspect that its author has hardly appreciated its full import.\nPresumably, Dr. Wace regards Mahommed as an unbeliever, or, to use the term\nwhich he prefers, infidel; and considers that his assurances have given\nrise to a vast delusion which has led, and is leading, millions of men\nstraight to everlasting punishment. And this being so, the \"Trust and\nfaith\" which have \"made the Mahommedan world,\" in just the same sense as\nthey have \"made the Christian world,\" must be trust and faith in falsehood.\nNo man who has studied history, or even attended to the occurrences of\neveryday life, can doubt the enormous practical value of trust and faith;\nbut as little will he be inclined to deny that this practical value has not\nthe least relation to the reality of the objects of that trust and faith.\nIn examples of patient constancy of faith and of unswerving trust, the\n_Acta Martyrum_ do not excel the annals of Babism.[83]\n\n\n\nThe discussion upon which we have now entered goes so thoroughly to the\nroot of 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 offer\nno apology for following it out somewhat in detail; and, by way of giving\nsubstance to the {334} argument, I shall base what I have to say upon a\ncase, the consideration of which lies strictly within the province of\nnatural science, and of that particular part of it known as the physiology\nand 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 that\nhistory. It is the well-known story of the devils who were cast out of a\nman, and ordered, or permitted, to enter into a herd of swine, to the great\nloss and damage of the innocent Gerasene, or Gadarene, pig owners. There\ncan be no doubt that the narrator intends to convey to his readers his own\nconviction that this casting out and entering in were effected by the\nagency of Jesus of Nazareth; that, by speech and action, Jesus enforced\nthis conviction; nor does any inkling of the legal and moral difficulties\nof the case manifest itself.\n\nOn the other hand, everything that I know of physiological and pathological\nscience leads me to entertain a very strong conviction that the phenomena\nascribed to possession are as purely natural as those which constitute\nsmall-pox; everything that I know of anthropology leads me to think that\nthe belief in demons and demoniacal possession is a mere survival of a once\nuniversal superstition, and that its persistence, at the present time, is\npretty much in the inverse ratio of the general instruction, intelligence,\nand sound judgment of the population among whom it prevails. Everything\nthat I know of law and {335} justice convinces me that the wanton\ndestruction of other people's property is a misdemeanour of evil example.\nAgain, the study of history, and especially of that of the fifteenth,\nsixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, leaves no shadow of doubt on my mind\nthat the belief in the reality of possession and of witchcraft, justly\nbased, alike by Catholics and Protestants, upon this and innumerable other\npassages in both the Old and New Testaments, gave rise, through the special\ninfluence of Christian ecclesiastics, to the most horrible persecutions and\njudicial murders of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and\nchildren. 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, the\nsupposition that such declaration was withheld out of condescension to\npopular error.\n\n\"Come forth, thou unclean spirit, out of the man\" (Mark v. 8),[84] are the\nwords attributed to Jesus. If I declare, as I have no hesitation in doing,\nthat I utterly disbelieve in the existence of \"unclean spirits,\" and,\nconsequently, in the possibility of their \"coming forth\" out of a man, I\nsuppose that Dr. Wace will tell me I am disregarding the testimony \"of our\nLord\" (_l. c._ p. 255). 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 {336}\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 can be\n    placed they must, at least, be regarded as _honest_ men. Now, though\n    honest speech does not require that words should be used always and\n    only in their etymological sense, it does require that they should not\n    be used so as to affirm what the speaker knows to be false. Whilst,\n    therefore, our Lord and His Apostles might use the word [Greek:\n    daimonizesthai], or the phrase [Greek: daimonion echein], as a popular\n    description of certain diseases, without giving in to the belief which\n    lay at the source of such a mode of expression, they could not speak of\n    demons entering into a man, or being cast out of him, without pledging\n    themselves to the belief of an actual possession of the man by the\n    demons. (Campbell, _Prel. Diss._ vi. 1, 10.) If, consequently, they did\n    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 viii.\n29); and, although the first Gospel either gives a different version of the\nsame story, or tells another of like kind, the essential point remains: \"If\nthou cast us out, send us away into the herd of swine. And He said unto\nthem: 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 a matter of fact of the\nutmost practical and speculative importance--belief or disbelief in which\nmay affect, and has affected, men's lives and their conduct towards other\nmen in the most serious {337} way--then I am bound to believe that Jesus\nimplicitly affirmed himself to possess a \"knowledge of the unseen world,\"\nwhich afforded full confirmation of the belief in demons and possession\ncurrent among his contemporaries. If the story is true, the mediaeval theory\nof the invisible world may be, and probably is, quite correct; and the\nwitchfinders, from Sprenger to Hopkins and Mather, 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 is\nbased, in all cases that have been properly investigated; science, more and\nmore seeing its way to enclose all the phenomena of so-called \"possession\"\nwithin the domain of pathology, so far as they are not to be relegated to\nthat of the police--all these powerful influences concur in warning us, at\nour peril, against accepting the belief without the most careful scrutiny\nof 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 inevitable\nthat his authority on matters connected with the \"unseen world\" should be\nroughly shaken; in the latter, the blow falls upon the authority of the\nsynoptic gospels. If their report on a matter of such stupendous and\nfar-reaching practical import as this is untrustworthy, how can we be sure\nof its trustworthiness in other cases? The favourite \"earth,\" in which the\nhard-pressed reconciler takes refuge, that the Bible does {338} not profess\nto teach science,[85] is stopped in this instance. For the question of the\nexistence of demons and of possession by them, though it lies strictly\nwithin the province of science, is also of the deepest moral and religious\nsignificance. If physical and mental disorders are caused by demons,\nGregory of Tours and his contemporaries rightly considered that relics and\nexorcists were more useful than doctors; the gravest questions arise as to\nthe legal and moral responsibilities of persons inspired by demoniacal\nimpulses; and our whole conception of the universe and of our relations to\nit becomes totally different from what it would be on the contrary\nhypothesis.\n\nThe theory of life of an average mediaeval Christian was as different from\nthat of an average nineteenth-century Englishman as that of a West African\nnegro is now, in these respects. The modern world is slowly, but surely,\nshaking off these and other monstrous survivals of savage delusions, and,\nwhatever happens, {339} it will not return to that wallowing in the mire.\nUntil the contrary is proved, I venture to doubt whether, at this present\nmoment, any Protestant theologian, who has a reputation to lose, will say\nthat 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, thought\nto honour by preserving such traditions of the exercise of his authority\nover Satan's invisible world. This is the dilemma. No deep scholarship,\nnothing but a knowledge of the revised version (on which it is to be\nsupposed all that mere scholarship can do has been done), with the\napplication thereto of the commonest canons of common sense, is needful to\nenable us to make a choice between its alternatives. It is hardly doubtful\nthat the story, as told in the first Gospel, is merely a version of that\ntold in the second and third. Nevertheless, the discrepancies are serious\nand irreconcilable; and, on this ground alone, a suspension of judgment, at\nthe least, is called for. But there is a great deal more to be said. From\nthe dawn of scientific biblical criticism until the present day, the\nevidence against the long-cherished notion that the three synoptic Gospels\nare the works of three independent authors, each prompted by Divine\ninspiration, has steadily accumulated, until, at the present time, there is\nno visible escape from the conclusion that each of the three is a\ncompilation consisting of a groundwork common to all three--the threefold\ntradition; and of a superstructure, consisting, firstly, {340} of matter\ncommon to it with one of the others, and, secondly, of matter special to\neach. The use of the terms \"groundwork\" and \"superstructure\" by no means\nimplies that the latter must be of later date than the former. On the\ncontrary, some parts of it may be and probably are, older than some parts\nof the groundwork.[86]\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 to\noutweigh the counter arguments of humanity, of common sense, of exact\nscience, and to imperil the respect which all would be glad to be able to\nrender to their Master?\n\nAbsolutely nothing.[87] There is no proof, nothing {341} more than a fair\npresumption, that any one of the Gospels existed, in the state in which we\nfind it in the authorised version of the Bible, before the second century,\nor, in other words, sixty or seventy years after the events recorded. And,\nbetween that time and the date of the oldest extant manuscripts of the\nGospels, there is no telling what additions and alterations and\ninterpolations may have been made. It may be said that this is all mere\nspeculation, but it is a good deal more. As competent scholars and honest\nmen, our revisers have felt compelled to point out that such things have\nhappened even since the date of the oldest known manuscripts. The oldest\ntwo copies of the second Gospel end with the 8th verse of the 16th chapter;\nthe remaining twelve verses are spurious, and it is noteworthy that the\nmaker of the addition has not hesitated to introduce a speech in which\nJesus promises his disciples that \"in My name shall they cast out devils.\"\n\nThe other passage \"rejected to the margin\" is still more instructive. It is\nthat touching apologue, with its profound ethical sense, of the woman taken\nin adultery--which, if internal evidence were an infallible guide, might\nwell be affirmed to be a typical example of the teachings of Jesus. Yet,\nsay the revisers, pitilessly, \"Most of the ancient authorities omit John\nvii. 53-viii. 11.\" Now let any reasonable man ask himself this question.\nIf, after an approximate settlement of the canon of the New Testament, and\neven later than the fourth and fifth centuries, literary fabricators had\nthe skill and the audacity to {342} make such additions and interpolations\nas these, what may they have done when no one had thought of a canon; when\noral tradition, still unfixed, was regarded as more valuable than such\nwritten records as may have existed in the latter portion of the first\ncentury? Or, to take the other alternative, if those who gradually settled\nthe canon did not know of the existence of the oldest codices which have\ncome down to us; or if, knowing them, they rejected their authority, what\nis to be thought of their competency as critics of the text?\n\nPeople who object to free criticism of the Christian Scriptures forget that\nthey 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 against\nerror. For, even granting that some books of the period were inspired, they\nwere certainly few amongst many; and those who selected the canonical\nbooks, unless they themselves were also inspired, must be regarded in the\nlight of mere critics, and, from the evidence they have left of their\nintellectual habits, very uncritical critics. When one thinks that such\ndelicate questions as those involved fell into the hands of men like Papias\n(who believed in the famous millenarian grape story); of Irenaeus with his\n\"reasons\" for the existence of only four Gospels; and of such calm and\ndispassionate judges as Tertullian, with his \"_Credo quia impossibile_\":\nthe marvel is that the selection which constitutes our New Testament is as\nfree as it is from obviously objectionable {343} matter. The apocryphal\nGospels certainly deserve to be apocryphal; but one may suspect that a\nlittle more critical discrimination would have enlarged the Apocrypha not\ninconsiderably.\n\nAt this point a very obvious objection arises and deserves full and candid\nconsideration. It may be said that critical scepticism carried to the\nlength suggested is historical pyrrhonism; that if we are to altogether\ndiscredit an ancient or a modern historian, because he has assumed fabulous\nmatter to be true, it will be as well to give up paying any attention to\nhistory. It may be said, and with great justice, that Eginhard's _Life of\nCharlemagne_ is none the less trustworthy because of the astounding\nrevelation of credulity, of lack of judgment, and even of respect for the\neighth commandment, which he has unconsciously made in the _History of the\nTranslation of the Blessed Martyrs Marcellinus and Paul_. Or, to go no\nfurther back than the last number of this Review, surely that excellent\nlady, Miss Strickland, is not to be refused all credence because of the\nmyth about the second James's remains, which she seems to have\nunconsciously invented.\n\nOf course this is perfectly true. I am afraid there is no man alive whose\nwitness could be accepted, if the condition precedent were proof that he\nhad never invented and promulgated a myth. In the minds of all of us there\nare little places here and there, like the indistinguishable spots on a\nrock which give foothold to moss or stonecrop; on which, if the germ of a\nmyth fall, it is certain to grow, without in the least {344} degree\naffecting our accuracy or truthfulness elsewhere. Sir Walter Scott knew\nthat he could not repeat a story without, as he said, \"giving it a new hat\nand stick.\" Most of us differ from Sir Walter only in not knowing about\nthis tendency of the mythopoeic faculty to break out unnoticed. But it is\nalso perfectly true that the mythopoeic faculty is not equally active in\nall minds, nor in all regions and under all conditions of the same mind.\nDavid Hume was certainly not so liable to temptation as the Venerable Bede,\nor even as some recent historians who could be mentioned; and the most\nimaginative of debtors, if he owes five pounds, never makes an obligation\nto pay a hundred out of it. The rule of common sense is _prima facie_ to\ntrust a witness in all matters in which neither his self-interest, his\npassions, his prejudices, nor that love of the marvellous, which is\ninherent to a greater or less degree in all mankind, are strongly\nconcerned; and, when they are involved, to require corroborative evidence\nin exact proportion to the contravention of probability by the thing\ntestified.\n\nNow, in the Gadarene affair, I do not think I am unreasonably sceptical if\nI say that the existence of demons who can be transferred from a man to a\npig, does thus contravene probability. Let me be perfectly candid. I admit\nI have no _a priori_ objection to offer. There are physical things, such as\n_taeniae_ and _trichinae_, which can be transferred from men to pigs, and\n_vice versa_, and which do undoubtedly produce most diabolical and deadly\neffects on both. For {345} anything I can absolutely prove to the contrary,\nthere may be spiritual things capable of the same transmigration, with like\neffects. Moreover I am bound to add that perfectly truthful persons, for\nwhom I have the greatest respect, believe in stories about spirits of the\npresent day, quite as improbable as that we are considering.\n\nSo I declare, as plainly as I can, that I am unable to show cause why these\ntransferable devils should not exist; nor can I deny that, not merely the\nwhole Roman Church, but many Wacean \"infidels\" of no mean repute, do\nhonestly and firmly believe that the activity of such like demonic beings\nis 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 the\ncanon of credibility and testimony, which I have ventured to lay down, has\nfull force. So that, with the most entire respect for many (by no means for\nall) of our witnesses for the truth of demonology, ancient and modern, I\nconceive their evidence on this particular matter to be ridiculously\ninsufficient to warrant their conclusion.[88]\n\n{346}\n\nAfter what has been said, I do not think that any sensible man, unless he\nhappen 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 demoniac\npossession, which forms the sombre background of the whole picture of\nprimitive Christianity presented to us in the New Testament, is shaken,\nwhat is to be said, in any case, of the uncorroborated testimony of the\nGospels 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 the\nstrictest school of evangelical orthodoxy; and when I was old enough to\nthink for myself, I started upon my journey of inquiry with little doubt\nabout the general truth of what I had been taught; and with that feeling of\nthe unpleasantness of being called an \"infidel\" which, we are told, is so\nright and proper. Near my journey's end, I find myself in a condition of\nsomething more than mere doubt about these matters.\n\n{347}\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 indistinct\nas I tried to define their outline by close inspection. There was something\nthere--something which, if I could win assurance about it, might mark a new\nepoch in the history of the earth; but, study as long as I might, certainty\neluded my grasp. So has it been with me in my efforts to define the grand\nfigure of Jesus as it lies in the primary strata of Christian literature.\nIs he the kindly, peaceful Christ depicted in the Catacombs? Or is he the\nstern Judge who frowns above the altar of SS. Cosmas and Damianus? Or can\nhe be rightly represented by the bleeding ascetic, broken down by physical\npain, of too many mediaeval pictures? Are we to accept the Jesus of the\nsecond, or the Jesus of the fourth Gospel, as the true Jesus? What did he\nreally say and do; and how much that is attributed to him, in speech and\naction, is the embroidery of the various parties into which his followers\ntended to split themselves within twenty years of his death, when even the\nthreefold tradition 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 satisfactorily answered, I say\nof 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 myself\nan agnostic; that if I am {348} not a Christian I am an infidel; and that I\nought to call myself by that name of \"unpleasant significance.\" Well, I do\nnot care much what I am called by other people, and if I had at my side all\nthose who, since the Christian era, have been called infidels by other\nfolks, I could not desire better company. If these are my ancestors, I\nprefer, with the old Frank, to be with them wherever they are. But there\nare several points in Dr. Wace's contention which must be elucidated before\nI can even think of undertaking to carry out his wishes. I must, for\ninstance, know what a Christian is. Now what is a Christian? By whose\nauthority is the signification of that term defined? Is there any doubt\nthat the immediate followers of Jesus, the \"sect of the Nazarenes,\" were\nstrictly orthodox Jews, differing from other Jews not more than the\nSadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes differed from one another; in\nfact, only in the belief that the Messiah, for whom the rest of their\nnation waited, had come? Was not their chief, \"James, the brother of the\nLord,\" reverenced alike by Sadducee, Pharisee, and Nazarene? At the famous\nconference which, according to the Acts, took place at Jerusalem, does not\nJames declare that \"myriads\" of Jews, who by that time had become\nNazarenes, were \"all zealous for the Law\"? Was not the name of \"Christian\"\nfirst used to denote the converts to the doctrine promulgated by Paul and\nBarnabas at Antioch? Does the subsequent history of Christianity leave any\ndoubt that, from this time forth, the \"little rift within {349} the lute\"\ncaused by the new teaching, developed, if not inaugurated, at Antioch, grew\nwider and wider, until the two types of doctrine irreconcilably diverged?\nDid not the primitive Nazarenism, or Ebionism, develop into the Nazarenism,\nand Ebionism, and Elkasaitism of later ages, and finally die out in\nobscurity and condemnation as damnable heresy; while the younger doctrine\nthrove and pushed out its shoots into that endless variety of sects, of\nwhich the three strongest survivors are the Roman and Greek Churches and\nmodern Protestantism?\n\nSingular state of things! If I were to profess the doctrine which was held\nby \"James, the brother of the Lord,\" and by every one of the \"myriads\" of\nhis followers and co-religionists in Jerusalem up to twenty or thirty years\nafter the Crucifixion (and one knows not how much later at Pella), I should\nbe condemned with unanimity as an ebionising heretic by the Roman, Greek,\nand Protestant Churches! And, probably, this hearty and unanimous\ncondemnation of the creed held by those who were in the closest personal\nrelation with their Lord is almost the only point upon which they would be\ncordially of one mind. On the other hand, though I hardly dare imagine such\na thing, I very much fear that the \"pillars\" of the primitive\nHierosolymitan Church would have considered Dr. Wace an infidel. No one can\nread the famous second chapter of Galatians and the book of Revelations\nwithout seeing how narrow was even Paul's escape from a similar {350} fate.\nAnd, if ecclesiastical history is to be trusted, the thirty-nine articles,\nbe they 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 work\nof Jesus was the instauration of Religion by the abolition of what our\nsticklers for articles and liturgies, with unconscious humour, call the\nnarrow restrictions of the Law. Yet, if James knew this, how could the\nbitter controversy with Paul have arisen; and why did one or the other side\nnot quote any of the various sayings of Jesus, recorded in the Gospels,\nwhich directly bear on the question--sometimes, apparently, in opposite\ndirections?\n\nSo if I am asked to call myself an \"infidel,\" I reply: To what doctrine do\nyou 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 the\nso-called Apostles' Creed? I am pretty sure that even that would have\ncreated a recalcitrant commotion at Pella in the year 70, among the\nNazarenes of Jerusalem, who had fled from the soldiers of Titus. And yet,\nif the {351} unadulterated tradition of the teachings of \"the Nazarene\"\nwere to be found anywhere, it surely should have been amidst those not very\naged 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 do\nit. \"Infidel\" is a term of reproach, which Christians and Mahommedans, in\ntheir modesty, agree to apply to those who differ from them. If he had only\nthought of it, Dr. Wace might have used the term \"miscreant,\" which, with\nthe same etymological signification, has the advantage of being still more\n\"unpleasant\" to the persons to whom it is applied. But why should a man be\nexpected to call himself a \"miscreant\" or an \"infidel\"? That St. Patrick\n\"had two birthdays because he was a twin\" is a reasonable and intelligible\nutterance beside that of the man who should declare himself to be an\ninfidel on the ground of denying his own belief. It may be logically, if\nnot ethically, defensible that a Christian should call a Mahommedan an\ninfidel and _vice versa_; but, on Dr. Wace's principles, both ought to call\nthemselves infidels, because each applies the term to the other.\n\nNow I am afraid that all the Mahommedan world would agree in reciprocating\nthat appellation to Dr. Wace himself. I once visited the Hazar Mosque, the\ngreat University of Mahommedanism, in Cairo, in ignorance of the fact that\nI was unprovided with {352} proper authority. A swarm of angry\nundergraduates, as I suppose I ought to call them, came buzzing about me\nand my guide; and if I had known Arabic, I suspect that \"dog of an infidel\"\nwould have been by no means the most \"unpleasant\" of the epithets showered\nupon me, before I could explain and apologise for the mistake. If I had had\nthe pleasure of Dr. Wace's company on that occasion, the undiscriminative\nfollowers of the Prophet would, I am afraid, have made no difference\nbetween us; not even if they had known that he was the head of an orthodox\nChristian seminary. And I have not the smallest doubt that even one of the\nlearned mollahs, if his grave courtesy would have permitted him to say\nanything offensive to men of another mode of belief, would have told us\nthat he wondered we did not find it \"very unpleasant\" to disbelieve in the\nProphet of Islam.\n\nFrom what precedes, I think it becomes sufficiently clear that Dr. Wace's\naccount of the origin of the name of \"Agnostic\" is quite wrong. Indeed, I\nam bound to add that very slight effort to discover the truth would have\nconvinced him that, as a matter of fact, the term arose otherwise. I am\nloath to go over an old story once more; but more than one object which I\nhave in view will be served by telling it a little more fully than it has\nyet been told.\n\nLooking back nearly fifty years, I see myself as a boy, whose education had\nbeen interrupted, and who, intellectually, was left, for some years,\naltogether to his own devices. At that time, I was a voracious {353} 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. One\nwas 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 was\ncertainly strange reading for a boy, and I could not possibly have\nunderstood a great deal of it;[89] 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 great\nnumber of cases, renders real answers to such questions, not merely\nactually 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 {354} lawful leisure hours, and still more sleepless ones, with the\nrepose of changed mental occupation, but has not unfrequently disputed my\nproper work-time with my liege lady, Natural Science. In this way, I have\nfound it possible to cover a good deal of ground in the territory of\nphilosophy; and all the more easily that I have never cared much about A's\nor B's opinions, but have rather sought to know what answer he had to give\nto the questions I had to put to him--that of the limitation of possible\nknowledge being the chief. The ordinary examiner, with his \"State the views\nof So-and-so,\" would have floored me at any time. If he had said what do\n_you_ think about any given problem, I might have got on fairly well.\n\nThe reader who has had the patience to follow the enforced, but unwilling,\negotism of this veritable history (especially if his studies have led him\nin the same direction), will now see why my mind steadily gravitated\ntowards the conclusions of Hume and Kant, so well stated by the latter in a\nsentence, which I have quoted elsewhere.\n\n    \"The greatest and perhaps the sole use of all philosophy of pure reason\n    is, after all, merely negative, since it serves not as an organon for\n    the enlargement [of knowledge], but as a discipline for its\n    delimitation; and, instead of discovering truth, has only the modest\n    merit of preventing error.\"[90]\n\nWhen I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was\nan atheist, a theist, or {355} a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a\nChristian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected,\nthe less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion\nthat I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the\nlast. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the\none thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had\nattained a certain \"gnosis,\"--had, more or less successfully, solved the\nproblem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty\nstrong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant\non my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that\nopinion. 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 left\nthe \"verace via\"--the straight road; and that this road led nowhere else\nbut into the dark depths of a wild and tangled forest. And though I have\nfound leopards and lions in the path; though I have made abundant\nacquaintance with the hungry wolf, that \"with privy paw devours apace and\nnothing said,\" as another great poet says of the ravening beast; and though\nno friendly spectre has even yet offered his guidance, I was, and am,\nminded to go straight on, until I either come out on the {356} 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 the\nmembers 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, and\nexpressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were _-ists_\nof one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I,\nthe man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to\nhave some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox\nwhen, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented\nhimself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and\ninvented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of \"agnostic.\" It\ncame into my head as suggestively antithetic to the \"gnostic\" of Church\nhistory, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was\nignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our\nSociety, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great\nsatisfaction, the term took; and when the _Spectator_ had stood godfather\nto it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people, that a knowledge\nof its parentage might have awakened, was, 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 {357} 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 and\nChristianity.[91]\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 Church\nCongress 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 have\nto say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ\" (_l. c._ p. 254).\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 be\n\"unpleasant\" for a Mahommedan or Buddhist to say so. But that \"it ought to\nbe\" unpleasant for any man to say anything which he sincerely, and after\ndue deliberation, believes, is, to my mind, a proposition of the most\nprofoundly immoral character. I verily believe that the great good which\nhas been effected in the world by Christianity has been largely\ncounteracted by the pestilent doctrine on which all the Churches have\ninsisted, that honest disbelief in their more or less astonishing creeds is\na moral offence, indeed a sin of the deepest dye, deserving {358} and\ninvolving the same future retribution as murder and robbery. If we could\nonly see, in one view, the torrents of hypocrisy and cruelty, the lies, the\nslaughter, the violations of every obligation of humanity, which have\nflowed from this source along the course of the history of Christian\nnations, our worst imaginations of Hell would pale beside the vision.\n\nA thousand times, no! It ought _not_ to be unpleasant to say that which one\nhonestly believes or disbelieves. That it so constantly is painful to do\nso, is quite enough obstacle to the progress of mankind in that most\nvaluable of all qualities, honesty of word or of deed, without erecting a\nsad concomitant of human weakness into something to be admired and\ncherished. The bravest of soldiers often, and very naturally, \"feel it\nunpleasant\" to go into action; but a court-martial which did its duty would\nmake short work of the officer who promulgated the doctrine that his men\n_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 worst\nforms of Christianity are of great practical advantage to them. What\ndeductions must be made from this gain on the score of the harm done to the\ncitizen by the ascetic otherworldliness of logical Christianity; to the\nruler, by {359} the hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness of sectarian\nbigotry; to the legislator, by the spirit of exclusiveness and domination\nof those that count themselves pillars of orthodoxy; to the philosopher, by\nthe restraints on the freedom of learning and teaching which every Church\nexercises, when it is strong enough; to the conscientious soul, by the\nintrospective hunting after sins of the mint and cummin type, the fear of\ntheological error, and the overpowering terror of possible damnation, which\nhave accompanied the Churches like their shadow, I need not now consider;\nbut they are assuredly not small. If agnostics lose heavily on the one\nside, they gain a good deal on the other. People who talk about the\ncomforts of belief appear to forget its discomforts; they ignore the fact\nthat the Christianity of the Churches is something more than faith in the\nideal personality of Jesus, which they create for themselves, _plus_ so\nmuch as can be carried into practice, without disorganising civil society,\nof the maxims of the Sermon on the Mount. Trip in morals or in doctrine\n(especially in doctrine), without due repentance or retractation, or fail\nto get properly baptized before you die, and a _plebiscite_ of the\nChristians of Europe, if they were true to their creeds, would affirm your\neverlasting damnation by an immense majority.\n\nPreachers, orthodox and heterodox, din into our ears that the world cannot\nget on without faith of some sort. There is a sense in which that is as\neminently as obviously true; there is another, in {360} 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 dealings\nwith the present and the future. From the nature of ratiocination it is\nobvious that the axioms on which it is based cannot be demonstrated by\nratiocination. It is also a trite observation that, in the business of\nlife, we constantly take the most serious action upon evidence of an\nutterly insufficient character. But it is surely plain that faith is not\nnecessarily entitled to dispense with ratiocination because ratiocination\ncannot dispense with faith as a starting-point; and that because we are\noften obliged, by the pressure of events, to act on very bad evidence, it\ndoes not follow that it is proper to act on such evidence when the pressure\nis 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\" for\n\"proving.\" The question of the exact meaning of the two words, [Greek:\nhupostasis] and [Greek: elenchos], affords a fine field of discussion for\nthe scholar and the metaphysician. But I fancy we shall be not far from the\nmark if we take the writer to have had in his mind the profound\npsychological {361} truth that men constantly feel certain about things for\nwhich they strongly hope, but have no evidence, in the legal or logical\nsense of the word; and he calls this feeling \"faith.\" I may have the most\nabsolute faith that a friend has not committed the crime of which he is\naccused. In the early days of English history, if my friend could have\nobtained a few more compurgators of a like robust faith, he would have been\nacquitted. At the present day, if I tendered myself as a witness on that\nscore, the judge would tell me to stand down, and the youngest barrister\nwould smile at my simplicity. Miserable indeed is the man who has not such\nfaith in some of his fellow-men--only less miserable than the man who\nallows himself to forget that such faith is not, strictly speaking,\nevidence; and when his faith is disappointed, as will happen now and again,\nturns Timon and blames the universe for his own blunders. And so, if a man\ncan find a friend, the hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his\nethical ideal, in the Jesus of any, or all, of the Gospels, let him live by\nfaith in that ideal. Who shall or can forbid him? But let him not delude\nhimself with the notion that his faith is evidence of the objective reality\nof that in which he trusts. Such evidence is to be obtained only by the use\nof the methods of science, as applied to history and to literature, and it\namounts at present to very little.\n\n\n\nIt appears that Mr. Gladstone some time ago asked Mr. Laing if he could\ndraw up a short summary {362} of the negative creed; a body of negative\npropositions, which have so far been adopted on the negative side as to be\nwhat the Apostles' and other accepted creeds are on the positive; and Mr.\nLaing at once kindly obliged Mr. Gladstone with the desired articles--eight\nof them.\n\nIf any one had preferred this request to me I should have replied that, if\nhe referred to agnostics, they have no creed; and, by the nature of the\ncase, cannot have any. Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method,\nthe essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single\nprinciple. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates;\nas old as the writer who said, \"Try all things, hold fast by that which is\ngood;\" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated\nthe axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that\nis in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental\naxiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In\nmatters of the intellect follow your reason as far as it will take you\nwithout regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of\nthe intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not\ndemonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which\nif a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the\nuniverse in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.\n\nThe results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary\naccording to individual knowledge {363} and capacity, and according to the\ngeneral condition of science. That which is unproven to-day may be proven\nby the help of new discoveries to-morrow. The only negative fixed points\nwill be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our\nfaculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open\nto conviction. Agnostics who never fail in carrying out their principles\nare, I am afraid, as rare as other people of whom the same consistency can\nbe truthfully predicated. But, if you were to meet with such a phoenix and\nto tell him that you had discovered that two and two make five, he would\npatiently ask you to state your reasons for that conviction, and express\nhis readiness to agree with you if he found them satisfactory. The\napostolic injunction to \"suffer fools gladly\" should be the rule of life of\na true agnostic. I am deeply conscious how far I myself fall short of this\nideal, but it is my personal conception of what agnostics ought to be.\n\nHowever, as I began by stating, I speak only for myself; and I do not dream\nof anathematizing and excommunicating Mr. Laing. But, when I consider his\ncreed and compare it with the Athanasian, I think I have on the whole a\nclearer conception of the meaning of the latter. \"Polarity,\" in Article\nVIII., for example, is a word about which I heard a good deal in my youth,\nwhen \"Naturphilosophie\" was in fashion, and greatly did I suffer from it.\nFor many years past, whenever I have met with \"polarity\" anywhere but in a\ndiscussion of some purely physical topic, such as magnetism, I have shut\nthe book. Mr. {364} Laing must excuse me if the force of habit was too much\nfor me when I read his eighth article.\n\n\n\nAnd now, what is to be said to Mr. Harrison's remarkable deliverance \"On\nthe future of agnosticism\"?[92] I would that it were not my business to say\nanything, for I am afraid that I can say nothing which shall manifest my\ngreat personal respect for this able writer, and for the zeal and energy\nwith which he ever and anon galvanises the weakly frame of Positivism until\nit looks more than ever like John Bunyan's Pope and Pagan rolled into one.\nThere is a story often repeated, and I am afraid none the less mythical on\nthat account, of a valiant and loud-voiced corporal in command of two full\nprivates who, falling in with a regiment of the enemy in the dark, orders\nit to surrender under pain of instant annihilation by his force; and the\nenemy surrenders accordingly. I am always reminded of this tale when I read\nthe positivist commands to the forces of Christianity and of Science; only\nthe enemy show no more signs of intending to obey now than they have done\nany time these forty years.\n\nThe allocution under consideration has the papal flavour which is wont to\nhang about the utterances of the pontiffs of the Church of Comte. Mr.\nHarrison speaks with authority and not as one of the common scribes of the\nperiod. He knows not only what agnosticism is and how it has come about,\nbut what will become of it. The agnostic is to content {365} himself with\nbeing the precursor of the positivist. In his place, as a sort of navvy\nlevelling the ground and cleansing it of such poor stuff as Christianity,\nhe is a useful creature who deserves patting on the back, on condition that\nhe does not venture beyond his last. But let not these scientific\nSanballats presume that they are good enough to take part in the building\nof the Temple--they are mere Samaritans, doomed to die out in proportion as\nthe Religion of Humanity is accepted by mankind. Well, if that is their\nfate, they have time to be cheerful. But let us hear Mr. Harrison's\npronouncement of their doom.\n\n\"Agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion, an entirely negative\nstage, the point reached by physicists, a purely mental conclusion, with no\nrelation to things social at all\" (p. 154). I am quite dazed by this\ndeclaration. Are there, then, any \"conclusions\" that are not \"purely\nmental\"? Is there \"no relation to things social\" in \"mental conclusions\"\nwhich affect men's whole conception of life? Was that prince of agnostics,\nDavid Hume, particularly imbued with physical science? Supposing physical\nscience to be non-existent, would not the agnostic principle, applied by\nthe philologist and the historian, lead to exactly the same results? Is the\nmodern more or less complete suspension of judgment as to the facts of the\nhistory of regal Rome, or the real origin of the Homeric poems, anything\nbut agnosticism in history and in literature? And if so, how can\nagnosticism be the \"mere negation of the physicist\"? {366}\n\n\"Agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion.\" No two people agree\nas to what is meant by the term \"religion\"; but if it means, as I think it\nought to mean, simply the reverence and love for the ethical ideal, and the\ndesire to realise that ideal in life, which every man ought to feel--then I\nsay agnosticism has no more to do with it than it has to do with music or\npainting. If, on the other hand, Mr. Harrison, like most people, means by\n\"religion\" theology, then in my judgment agnosticism can be said to be a\nstage in its evolution, only as death may be said to be the final stage in\nthe evolution of life.\n\n    When agnostic logic is simply one of the canons of thought,\n    agnosticism, as a distinctive faith, will have spontaneously\n    disappeared (p. 155).\n\nI can but marvel that such sentences as this, and those already quoted,\nshould have proceeded from Mr. Harrison's pen. Does he really mean to\nsuggest that agnostics have a logic peculiar to themselves? Will he kindly\nhelp me out of my bewilderment when I try to think of \"logic\" being\nanything else than the canon (which, I believe, means rule) of thought? As\nto agnosticism being a distinctive faith, I have already shown that it\ncannot possibly be anything of the kind, unless perfect faith in logic is\ndistinctive of agnostics; which, after all, it may be.\n\n    Agnosticism as a religious philosophy _per se_ rests on an almost total\n    ignoring of history and social evolution (p. 152).\n\nBut neither _per se_ nor _per aliud_ has agnosticism (if I know anything\nabout it) the least pretension to be a religious philosophy; so far from\nresting on {367} ignorance of history, and that social evolution of which\nhistory is the account, it is and has been the inevitable result of the\nstrict adherence to scientific methods by historical investigators. Our\nforefathers were quite confident about the existence of Romulus and Remus,\nof King Arthur, and of Hengist and Horsa. Most of us have become agnostics\nin regard to the reality of these worthies. It is a matter of notoriety of\nwhich Mr. Harrison, who accuses us all so freely of ignoring history,\nshould not be ignorant, that the critical process which has shattered the\nfoundations of orthodox Christian doctrine owes its origin, not to the\ndevotees of physical science, but, before all, to Richard Simon, the\nlearned French Oratorian, just two hundred years ago. I cannot find\nevidence that either Simon, or any one of the great scholars and critics of\nthe eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who have continued Simon's work,\nhad any particular acquaintance with physical science. I have already\npointed out that Hume was independent of it. And certainly one of the most\npotent influences in the same direction, upon history in the present\ncentury, that of Grote, did not come from the physical side. Physical\nscience, in fact, has had nothing directly to do with the criticism of the\nGospels; it is wholly incompetent to furnish demonstrative evidence that\nany statement made in these histories is untrue. Indeed, modern physiology\ncan find parallels in nature for events of apparently the most eminently\nsupernatural kind recounted in some of those histories. {368}\n\nIt is a comfort to hear, upon Mr. Harrison's authority, that the laws of\nphysical nature show no signs of becoming \"less definite, less consistent,\nor less popular as time goes on\" (p. 154). How a law of nature is to become\nindefinite, or \"inconsistent,\" passes my poor powers of imagination. But\nwith universal suffrage and the coach-dog theory of premiership in full\nview; the theory, I mean, that the whole duty of a political chief is to\nlook sharp for the way the social coach is driving, and then run in front\nand bark loud--as if being the leading noise-maker and guiding were the\nsame things--it is truly satisfactory to me to know that the laws of nature\nare increasing in popularity. Looking at recent developments of the policy\nwhich is said to express the great heart of the people, I have had my\ndoubts of the fact; and my love for my fellow-countrymen has led me to\nreflect with dread on what will happen to them if any of the laws of nature\never become so unpopular in their eyes as to be voted down by the\ntranscendent authority of universal suffrage. If the legion of demons,\nbefore they set out on their journey in the swine, had had time to hold a\nmeeting and to resolve unanimously \"That the law of gravitation is\noppressive and ought to be repealed,\" I am afraid it would have made no\nsort of difference to the result, when their two thousand unwilling porters\nwere once launched down the steep slopes of the fatal shore of Gennesaret.\n\n    The question of the place of religion as an element of human nature, as\n    a force of human society, its origin, analysis, and {369} functions,\n    has never been considered at all from an agnostic point of view (p.\n    152).\n\nI doubt not that Mr. Harrison knows vastly more about history than I do; in\nfact, he tells the public that some of my friends and I have had no\nopportunity of occupying ourselves with that subject. I do not like to\ncontradict any statement which Mr. Harrison makes on his own authority;\nonly, if I may be true to my agnostic principles, I humbly ask how he has\nobtained assurance on this head. I do not profess to know anything about\nthe range of Mr. Harrison's studies; but as he has thought it fitting to\nstart the subject, I may venture to point out that, on evidence adduced, it\nmight be equally permissible to draw the conclusion that Mr. Harrison's\nabsorbing labours as the _pontifex maximus_ of the positivist religion have\nnot allowed him to acquire that acquaintance with the methods and results\nof physical science, or with the history of philosophy, or of philological\nand historical criticism, which is essential to any one who desires to\nobtain a right understanding of agnosticism. Incompetence in philosophy,\nand in all branches of science except mathematics, is the well-known mental\ncharacteristic of the founder of positivism. Faithfulness in disciples is\nan admirable quality in itself; the pity is that it not unfrequently leads\nto the imitation of the weaknesses as well as of the strength of the\nmaster. It is only such overfaithfulness which can account for a \"strong\nmind really saturated with the historical sense\" (p. 153) exhibiting the\nextraordinary forgetfulness of the {370} historical fact of the existence\nof David Hume implied by the assertion that\n\n    it would be difficult to name a single known agnostic who has given to\n    history anything like the amount of thought and study which he brings\n    to a knowledge of the physical world (p. 153).\n\nWhoso calls to mind what I may venture to term the bright side of\nChristianity--that ideal of manhood, with its strength and its patience,\nits justice and its pity for human frailty, its helpfulness to the\nextremity of self-sacrifice, its ethical purity and nobility, which\napostles have pictured, in which armies of martyrs have placed their\nunshakable faith, and whence obscure men and women, like Catherine of\nSienna and John Knox, have derived the courage to rebuke popes and\nkings--is not likely to underrate the importance of the Christian faith as\na factor in human history, or to doubt that if that faith should prove to\nbe incompatible with our knowledge, or necessary want of knowledge, some\nother hypostasis of men's hopes, genuine enough and worthy enough to\nreplace it, will arise. But that the incongruous mixture of bad science\nwith eviscerated papistry, out of which Comte manufactured the positivist\nreligion, will be the heir of the Christian ages, I have too much respect\nfor the humanity of the future to believe. Charles the Second told his\nbrother, \"They will not kill me, James, to make you king.\" And if critical\nscience is remorselessly destroying the historical foundations of the\nnoblest ideal of humanity which mankind have yet {371} worshipped, it is\nlittle likely to permit the pitiful reality to climb into the vacant\nshrine.\n\nThat a man should determine to devote himself to the service of\nhumanity--including intellectual and moral self-culture under that name;\nthat this should be, in the proper sense of the word, his religion--is not\nonly an intelligible, but, I think, a laudable resolution. And I am greatly\ndisposed to believe that it is the only religion which will prove itself to\nbe unassailably acceptable so long as the human race endures. But when the\npositivist asks me to worship \"Humanity\"--that is to say, to adore the\ngeneralised conception of men as they ever have been and probably ever will\nbe--I must reply that I could just as soon bow down and worship the\ngeneralised conception of a \"wilderness of apes.\" Surely we are not going\nback to the days of Paganism, when individual men were deified, and the\nhard good sense of a dying Vespasian could prompt the bitter jest, \"Ut puto\nDeus fio.\" No divinity doth hedge a modern man, be he even a sovereign\nruler. Nor is there any one, except a municipal magistrate, who is\nofficially declared worshipful. But if there is no spark of worship-worthy\ndivinity in the individual twigs of humanity, whence comes that godlike\nsplendour which the Moses of Positivism fondly imagines to pervade the\nwhole bush.\n\nI know no study which is so unutterably saddening as that of the evolution\nof humanity, as it is set forth in the annals of history. Out of the\ndarkness of prehistoric ages man emerges with the marks of {372} his lowly\norigin strong upon him. He is a brute, only more intelligent than the other\nbrutes, a blind prey to impulses, which as often as not lead him to\ndestruction; a victim to endless illusions, which make his mental existence\na terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren toil and\nbattle. He attains a certain degree of physical comfort, and develops a\nmore or less workable theory of life, in such favourable situations as the\nplains of Mesopotamia or of Egypt, and then, for thousands and thousands of\nyears, struggles, with varying fortunes, attended by infinite wickedness,\nbloodshed, and misery, to maintain himself at this point against the greed\nand the ambition of his fellow-men. He makes a point of killing and\notherwise persecuting all those who first try to get him to move on; and\nwhen he has moved on a step, foolishly confers post-mortem deification on\nhis victims. He exactly repeats the process with all who want to move a\nstep yet farther. And the best men of the best epochs are simply those who\nmake the fewest blunders and commit the fewest sins.\n\nThat one should rejoice in the good man, forgive the bad man, and pity and\nhelp all men to the best of one's ability, is surely indisputable. It is\nthe glory of Judaism and of Christianity to have proclaimed this truth,\nthrough all their aberrations. But the worship of a God who needs\nforgiveness and help, and deserves pity every hour of his existence, is no\nbetter than that of any other voluntarily selected fetish. The Emperor\nJulian's project was hopeful in {373} comparison with the prospects of the\nnew Anthropolatry.\n\n\n\nWhen the historian of religion in the twentieth century is writing about\nthe nineteenth, I foresee he will say something of this kind:\n\nThe most curious and instructive events in the religious history of the\npreceding century are the rise and progress of two new sects called Mormons\nand Positivists. To the student who has carefully considered these\nremarkable phenomena nothing in the records of religious self-delusion can\nappear improbable.\n\nThe Mormons arose in the midst of the great Republic, which, though\ncomparatively insignificant, at that time, in territory as in the number of\nits citizens, was (as we know from the fragments of the speeches of its\norators which have come down to us) no less remarkable for the native\nintelligence of its population than for the wide extent of their\ninformation, owing to the activity of their publishers in diffusing all\nthat they could invent, beg, borrow, or steal. Nor were they less noted for\ntheir perfect freedom from all restraints in thought, or speech, or deed;\nexcept, to be sure, the beneficent and wise influence of the majority,\nexerted, in case of need, through an institution known as \"tarring and\nfeathering,\" the exact nature of which is now disputed.\n\nThere is a complete consensus of testimony that the founder of Mormonism,\none Joseph Smith, was a low-minded, ignorant scamp, and that he stole the\n{374} \"Scriptures\" which he propounded; not being clever enough to forge\neven such contemptible stuff as they contain. Nevertheless he must have\nbeen a man of some force of character, for a considerable number of\ndisciples soon gathered about him. In spite of repeated outbursts of\npopular hatred and violence--during one of which persecutions Smith was\nbrutally murdered--the Mormon body steadily increased, and became a\nflourishing community. But the Mormon practices being objectionable to the\nmajority, they were, more than once, without any pretence of law, but by\nforce of riot, arson, and murder, driven away from the land they had\noccupied. Harried by these persecutions, the Mormon body eventually\ncommitted itself to the tender mercies of a desert as barren as that of\nSinai; and after terrible sufferings and privations, reached the Oasis of\nUtah. Here it grew and flourished, sending out missionaries to, and\nreceiving converts from, all parts of Europe, sometimes to the number of\n10,000 in a year; until in 1880 the rich and flourishing community numbered\n110,000 souls in Utah alone, while there were probably 30,000 or 40,000\nscattered abroad elsewhere. In the whole history of religions there is no\nmore remarkable example of the power of faith; and, in this case, the\nfounder of that faith was indubitably a most despicable creature. It is\ninteresting to observe that the course taken by the great Republic and its\ncitizens runs exactly parallel with that taken by the Roman Empire and its\ncitizens towards the early Christians, except that the Romans had a certain\nlegal excuse for {375} their acts of violence, inasmuch as the Christian\n\"sodalitia\" were not licensed, and consequently were, _ipso facto_, illegal\nassemblages. Until, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the\nUnited States legislature decreed the illegality of polygamy, the Mormons\nwere wholly within the law.\n\nNothing can present a greater contrast to all this than the history of the\nPositivists. This sect arose much about the same time as that of the\nMormons, in the upper and most instructed stratum of the quick-witted,\nsceptical population of Paris. The founder, Auguste Comte, was a teacher of\nmathematics, but of no eminence in that department of knowledge, and with\nnothing but an amateur's acquaintance with physical, chemical, and\nbiological science. His works are repulsive on account of the dull\ndiffuseness of their style, and a certain air, as of a superior person,\nwhich characterises them; but nevertheless they contain good things here\nand there. It would take too much space to reproduce in detail a system\nwhich proposes to regulate all human life by the promulgation of a Gentile\nLeviticus. Suffice it to say, that M. Comte may be described as a\nsyncretic, who, like the Gnostics of early Church history, attempted to\ncombine the substance of imperfectly comprehended contemporary science with\nthe form of Roman Christianity. It may be that this is the reason why his\ndisciples were so very angry with some obscure people called Agnostics,\nwhose views, if we may judge by the account left in the works of a great\nPositivist controversial writer, were very absurd. {376}\n\nTo put the matter briefly, M. Comte, finding Christianity and Science at\ndaggers drawn, seems to have said to Science, \"You find Christianity rotten\nat the core, do you? Well, I will scoop out the inside of it.\" And to\nRomanism: \"You find Science mere dry light--cold and bare. Well, I will put\nyour shell over it, and so, as schoolboys make a spectre out of a turnip\nand a tallow candle, behold the new religion of Humanity complete!\"\n\nUnfortunately neither the Romanists nor the people who were something more\nthan amateurs in science, could be got to worship M. Comte's new idol\nproperly. In the native country of Positivism, one distinguished man of\nletters and one of science, for a time, helped to make up a roomful of the\nfaithful, but their love soon grew cold. In England, on the other hand,\nthere appears to be little doubt that, in the ninth decade of the century,\nthe multitude of disciples reached the grand total of several score. They\nhad the advantage of the advocacy of one or two most eloquent and learned\napostles, and, at any rate, the sympathy of several persons of light and\nleading--and, if they were not seen, they were heard all over the world. On\nthe other hand, as a sect, they laboured under the prodigious disadvantage\nof being refined, estimable people, living in the midst of the worn-out\ncivilisation of the old world; where any one who had tried to persecute\nthem, as the Mormons were persecuted, would have been instantly hanged. But\nthe majority never dreamed of persecuting them; on the contrary, they were\nrather {377} given to scold and otherwise try the patience of the majority.\n\nThe history of these sects in the closing years of the century is highly\ninstructive. Mormonism ...\n\nBut I find I have suddenly slipped off Mr. Harrison's tripod, which I had\nborrowed for the occasion. The fact is, I am not equal to the prophetical\nbusiness, and ought not to have undertaken it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{378}\n\nX\n\nTHE VALUE OF WITNESS TO THE MIRACULOUS\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 posterity\nas the Great (chiefly by his agglutinative Gallicised denomination of\nCharlemagne), was a man great in all ways, physically and mentally. Within\na couple of centuries after his death Charlemagne became the centre of\ninnumerable legends; and the myth-making process does not seem to have been\nsensibly interfered with by the existence of sober and truthful histories\nof the Emperor and of the times which immediately preceded and followed his\nreign, by a contemporary writer who occupied a high and confidential\nposition in his court, and in that of his successor. This was one Eginhard,\nor Einhard, who appears to have been born about A.D. 770, and spent his\nyouth at the court, being educated along with Charles's sons. There is\nexcellent contemporary testimony not only to Eginhard's existence, but to\nhis abilities, and to the place which he occupied in the circle of the\nintimate friends of the great ruler whose life he subsequently wrote. {379}\nIn fact, there is as good evidence of Eginhard's existence, of his official\nposition, and of his being the author of the chief works attributed to him,\nas can reasonably be expected in the case of a man who lived more than a\nthousand years ago, and was neither a great king nor a great warrior. The\nworks are--1. _The Life of the Emperor Karl._ 2. _The Annals of the\nFranks._ 3. _Letters._ 4. _The History of the Translation of the Blessed\nMartyrs of Christ, SS. Marcellinus and Petrus._\n\nIt is to the last, as one of the most singular and interesting records of\nthe period during which the Roman world passed into that of the Middle\nAges, that I wish to direct attention.[93] It was written in the ninth\ncentury, somewhere, apparently, about the year 830, when Eginhard, ailing\nin health and weary of political life, had withdrawn to the monastery of\nSeligenstadt, of which he was the founder. A manuscript copy of the work,\nmade in the tenth century, and once the property of the monastery of St.\nBavon on the Scheldt, of which Eginhard was Abbot, is still extant, and\nthere is no reason to believe that, in this copy, the original has been in\nany way interpolated or otherwise tampered with. The main features of the\nstrange story contained in the _Historia Translationis_ are set forth in\nthe following pages, in which, in regard to all matters of importance, I\nshall adhere as closely as possible to Eginhard's own words.\n\n{380}\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 in\n    that part of Germany which lies between the Neckar and the Maine,[94]\n    and is nowadays called the Odenwald by those who live in and about it.\n    And here having built, according to my capacity and resources, not only\n    houses and permanent dwellings, but also a basilica fitted for the\n    performance of divine service and of no mean style of construction, I\n    began to think to what saint or martyr I could best dedicate it. A good\n    deal of time had passed while my thoughts fluctuated about this matter,\n    when it happened that a certain deacon of the Roman Church, named\n    Deusdona, arrived at the Court for the purpose of seeking the favour of\n    the King in some affairs in which he was interested. He remained some\n    time; and then, having transacted his business, he was about to return\n    to 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,[95] and of the neglected tombs of the martyrs, of which\n    there is such a prodigious number at Rome; and the conversation having\n    turned towards the dedication of our new basilica, I began to inquire\n    how it might be possible for me to obtain some of the true relics of\n    the saints which rest at Rome. He at first hesitated, and declared that\n    he did not know how that could be done. But observing that I was both\n    anxious and curious about the subject, he promised to give me an answer\n    some other day.\n\n    When I returned to the question some time afterwards, he immediately\n    drew from his bosom a paper, which he begged me to read when I was\n    alone, and to tell him what I was disposed to think of that which was\n    therein stated. I took the paper and, as he desired, read it alone and\n    in secret. (Cap. i. 2, 3.)\n\n{381}\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 despatched\nto Rome and succeeded in securing two bodies, supposed to be those of the\nholy martyrs Marcellinus and Petrus; and when he had got as far on his\nhomeward journey as the Burgundian town of Solothurn, or Soleure,[96]\nnotary Ratleig despatched to his master, at St. Bavon, a letter announcing\nthe success of his mission.\n\n    As soon as by reading it I was assured of the arrival of the saints, I\n    despatched a confidential messenger to Maestricht to gather together\n    priests, other clerics, and also laymen, to go out to meet the coming\n    saints as speedily as possible. And he and his companions, having lost\n    no time, after a few days met those who had charge of the saints at\n    Solothurn. Joined with them, and with a vast crowd of people who\n    gathered from all parts, singing hymns, and amidst great and universal\n    rejoicings, they travelled quickly to the city of Argentoratum, which\n    is now called Strasburg. Thence embarking on the Rhine, they came to\n    the place called Portus,[97] and landing on the east bank of the river,\n    at the fifth station thence they arrived at Michilinstadt,[98]\n    accompanied by an immense multitude, praising God. This place is in\n    that forest of Germany which in modern times is called the Odenwald,\n    and about six leagues from the Maine. And here, having found a basilica\n    recently built by me, but not yet consecrated, they carried the sacred\n    remains into it and deposited them therein, as if it were to be their\n    final resting-place. As soon as all this was reported to me I travelled\n    thither as quickly as I could. (Cap. ii. 14.)\n\n{382}\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 first\nthing that he notices is the dream of a servant of Ratleig, the notary,\nwho, being set to watch the holy relics in the church after vespers, went\nto sleep, and during his slumbers had a vision of two pigeons, one white\nand one gray and white, which came and sat upon the bier over the relics;\nwhile, at the same time, a voice ordered the man to tell his master that\nthe holy martyrs had chosen another resting-place and desired to be\ntransported 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 smallest\nwishes, Eginhard was naturally greatly perplexed what to do. While in this\nstate of mind, he was one day contemplating his \"great and wonderful\ntreasure, more precious than all the gold in the world,\" when it struck him\nthat the chest in which the relics were contained was quite unworthy of its\ncontents; and after vespers he gave orders to one of the sacristans to take\nthe measure of the chest in order that a more fitting shrine might be\nconstructed. The man, having lighted a wax candle and raised the pall which\ncovered the relics, in order to carry out his master's orders, was\nastonished and terrified to observe that the chest was covered with a\nblood-like exudation (_loculum mirum in modum humore sanguineo undique\ndistillantem_), and at once sent a message to Eginhard. {383}\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 it\n    were sweat, so the chest which contained the most sacred relics was\n    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 of\nthat time the \"blood,\" which had been exuding in drops all the while, dried\nup. Eginhard is careful to say that the liquid \"had a saline taste,\nsomething like that of tears, and was thin as water, though of the colour\nof true blood,\" and he clearly thinks this satisfactory evidence that it\nwas blood.\n\nThe same night another servant had a vision, in which still more imperative\norders for the removal of the relics were given; and, from that time forth,\n\"not a single night passed without one, two, or even three of our\ncompanions receiving revelations in dreams that the bodies of the saints\nwere to be transferred from that place to another.\" At last a priest,\nHildfrid, saw, in a dream, a venerable white-haired man in a priest's\nvestments, who bitterly reproached Eginhard for not obeying the repeated\norders of the saints, and upon this the journey was commenced. Why Eginhard\ndelayed obedience to these repeated visions so long does not appear. He\ndoes not say so in so many words, but the general tenor of the narrative\nleads one to suppose that Mulinheim (afterwards Seligenstadt) is the\n\"solitary place\" in which he had built the church which awaited dedication.\n{384} In that case, all the people about him would know that he desired\nthat the saints should go there. If a glimmering of secular sense led him\nto be a little suspicious about the real cause of the unanimity of the\nvisionary beings who manifested themselves to his _entourage_ in favour of\nmoving on, he does not say so.\n\nAt the end of the first day's journey the precious relics were deposited in\nthe church of St. Martin, in the village of Ostheim. Hither a paralytic nun\n(_sanctimonialis quaedam paralytica_) of the name of Ruodlang was brought in\na car by her friends and relatives from a monastery a league off. She spent\nthe night watching and praying by the bier of the saints; \"and health\nreturning to all her members, on the morrow she went back to her place\nwhence she came, on her feet, nobody supporting her, or in any way giving\nher assistance.\" (Cap. ii. 19.)\n\nOn the second day, the relics were carried to Upper Mulinheim, and finally,\nin accordance with the orders of the martyrs, deposited in the church of\nthat place, which was therefore renamed Seligenstadt. Here, Daniel, a\nbeggar boy of fifteen, and so bent that \"he could not look at the sky\nwithout lying on his back,\" collapsed and fell down during the celebration\nof the Mass. \"Thus he lay a long time, as if asleep, and all his limbs\nstraightening and his flesh strengthening (_recepta firmitate nervorum_),\nhe arose before our eyes, quite well.\" (Cap. ii. 20.)\n\nSome time afterwards an old man entered the church on his hands and knees,\nbeing unable to use his limbs properly:-- {385}\n\n    He, in presence of all of us, by the power of God and the merits of the\n    blessed martyrs, in the same hour in which he entered was so perfectly\n    cured that he walked without so much as a stick. And he said that,\n    though he had been deaf for five years, his deafness had ceased along\n    with the palsy. (Cap. iii. 33.)\n\nEginhard was now obliged to return to the Court at Aix-la-Chapelle, where\nhis duties kept him through the winter; and he is careful to point out that\nthe later miracles which he proceeds to speak of are known to him only at\nsecond hand. But, as he naturally observes, having seen such wonderful\nevents with his own eyes, why should he doubt similar narrations when they\nare received from trustworthy sources?\n\nWonderful stories these are indeed, but as they are, for the most part, of\nthe same general character as those already recounted, they may be passed\nover. There is, however, an account of a possessed maiden which is worth\nattention. This is set forth in a memoir, the principal contents of which\nare the speeches of a demon who declared himself to possess the singular\nappellation of \"Wiggo,\" and revealed himself in the presence of many\nwitnesses, before the altar, close to the relics of the blessed martyrs. It\nis noteworthy that the revelations appear to have been made in the shape of\nreplies to the questions of the exorcising priest, and there is no means of\njudging how far the answers are, really, only the questions to which the\npatient replied yes or no.\n\nThe possessed girl, about sixteen years of age, was brought by her parents\nto the basilica of the martyrs. {386}\n\n    When she approached the tomb containing the sacred bodies, the priest,\n    according to custom, read the formula of exorcism over her head. When\n    he began to ask how and when the demon had entered her, she answered,\n    not in the tongue of the barbarians, which alone the girl knew, but in\n    the Roman tongue. And when the priest was astonished and asked how she\n    came to know Latin, when her parents, who stood by, were wholly\n    ignorant of it, \"Thou hast never seen my parents,\" was the reply. To\n    this the priest, \"Whence art thou, then, if these are not thy parents?\"\n    And the demon, by the mouth of the girl, \"I am a follower and disciple\n    of Satan, and for a long time I was gatekeeper (janitor) in hell; but,\n    for some years, along with eleven companions, I have ravaged the\n    kingdom of the Franks.\" (Cap. v. 49.)\n\nHe then goes on to tell how they blasted the crops and scattered pestilence\namong beasts and men, because of the prevalent wickedness of the\npeople.[99]\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 demon\nspoke in Latin by the mouth of the girl.\"\n\n    And when the priest imperatively ordered him to come out, \"I shall go,\"\n    said he, \"not in obedience to you, but on account of the power of the\n    saints, who do not allow me to remain any longer.\" And, having said\n    this, he threw the girl down on the floor and there compelled her to\n    lie prostrate for a time, as though she slumbered. After a little\n    while, however, he going away, the girl, by the power of Christ and the\n    merits of the blessed martyrs, as it were awaking from sleep, rose up\n    quite well, to the astonishment of all present; nor after the demon had\n    gone out was she able to speak Latin: so that it was plain enough that\n    it was not she who had spoken in that tongue, but the demon by her\n    mouth. (Cap. v. 51.)\n\n{387}\n\nIf the _Historia Translationis_ contained nothing more than has been, at\npresent, laid before the reader, disbelief in the miracles of which it\ngives so precise and full a record might well be regarded as\nhyper-scepticism. It might fairly be said, Here you have a man, whose high\ncharacter, acute intelligence, and large instruction are certified by\neminent contemporaries; a man who stood high in the confidence of one of\nthe greatest rulers of any age, and whose other works prove him to be an\naccurate and judicious narrator of ordinary events. This man tells you, in\nlanguage which bears the stamp of sincerity, of things which happened\nwithin his own knowledge, or within that of persons in whose veracity he\nhas entire confidence, while he appeals to his sovereign and the court as\nwitnesses of others; what possible ground can there be for disbelieving\nhim?\n\nWell, it is hard upon Eginhard to say so, but it is exactly the honesty and\nsincerity of the man which are his undoing as a witness to the miraculous.\nHe himself makes it quite obvious that when his profound piety comes on the\nstage, his good sense and even his perception of right and wrong make their\nexit. Let us go back to the point at which we left him, secretly perusing\nthe letter of Deacon Deusdona. As he tells 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 would\n    let him have one of them and would despatch with him a confidential\n    servant to take charge of the {388} relics, he would at once send them\n    to me. This plausibly expressed proposition pleased me, and I made up\n    my mind to test the value of the somewhat ambiguous promise at\n    once;[100] so giving him the mule and money for his journey I ordered\n    my notary Ratleig (who already desired to go to Rome to offer his\n    devotions there) to go with him. Therefore, having left Aix-la-Chapelle\n    (where the Emperor and his Court resided at the time) they came to\n    Soissons. Here they spoke with Hildoin, abbot of the monastery of St.\n    Medardus, because the said deacon had assured him that he had the means\n    of placing in his possession the body of the blessed Tiburtius the\n    Martyr. Attracted by which promises he (Hildoin) sent with them a\n    certain priest, Hunus by name, a sharp man (_hominem callidum_), whom\n    he ordered to receive and bring back the body of the martyr in\n    question. And so, resuming their journey, they proceeded to Rome as\n    fast as they 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 piece\nof adversity had its sweet uses; for three days before they reached Rome,\nReginbald had a vision. Somebody habited as a deacon appeared to him and\nasked why his master was in such a hurry to get to Rome; and when Reginbald\nexplained their business, this visionary deacon, who seems to have taken\nthe measure of his brother in the flesh with some accuracy, told him not by\nany means to expect that Deusdona would fulfil his promises. Moreover,\ntaking the servant by the hand, he led him to the top of a high mountain\nand, showing him Rome (where the man had never been), pointed {389} out a\nchurch, adding \"Tell Ratleig the thing he wants is hidden there; let him\nget it as quickly as he can and go back to his master;\" and, by way of a\nsign that the order was authoritative, the servant was promised that from\nthat time forth his fever should disappear. And as the fever did vanish to\nreturn no more, the faith of Eginhard's people in Deacon Deusdona naturally\nvanished with it (_et fidem diaconi promissis non haberent_). Nevertheless,\nthey put up at the deacon's house near St. Peter ad Vincula. But time went\non and 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 had\nbeen confided was gone to Beneventum and not expected back for some time,\nand so on--until Ratleig and Hunus began to despair, and were minded to\nreturn, _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 went\n    in the first place to the basilica of the blessed Tiburtius in the Via\n    Labicana, about three thousand paces from the town, and cautiously and\n    carefully inspected the tomb of that martyr, in order to discover\n    whether it could be opened without any one being the wiser. Then they\n    descended into the adjoining crypt, in which the bodies of the blessed\n    martyrs of Christ, Marcellinus and Petrus were buried; and, having made\n    out the nature of their tomb, they went away thinking their host would\n    not know what they had been about. But things fell out differently from\n    what they had imagined. (Cap. i. 7.)\n\nIn fact, Deacon Deusdona, who doubtless kept an eye on his guests, knew all\nabout their manoeuvres and made haste to offer his services, in order that\n{390} \"with the help of God\" (_si Deus votis eorum favere dignaretur_),\nthey should all work together. The deacon was evidently alarmed lest they\nshould succeed without _his_ help.\n\nSo, by way of preparation for the contemplated _vol avec effraction_ they\nfasted three days; and then, at night, without being seen, they betook\nthemselves to the basilica of St. Tiburtius, and tried to break open the\naltar erected over his remains. But the marble proving too solid, they\ndescended to the crypt, and \"having evoked our Lord Jesus Christ and adored\nthe holy martyrs,\" they proceeded to prise off the stone which covered the\ntomb, and thereby exposed the body of the most sacred martyr Marcellinus,\n\"whose head rested on a marble tablet on which his name was inscribed.\" The\nbody was taken up with the greatest veneration, wrapped in a rich covering,\nand given over to the keeping of the deacon and his brother, Lunison, while\nthe stone was replaced with such care that no sign of the theft remained.\n\nAs sacrilegious proceedings of this kind were punishable with death by the\nRoman law, it seems not unnatural that Deacon Deusdona should have become\nuneasy, and have urged Ratleig to be satisfied with what he had got and be\noff with his spoils. But the notary having thus cleverly captured the\nblessed Marcellinus, thought it a pity he should be parted from the blessed\nPetrus, side by side with whom he had rested for five hundred years and\nmore in the same sepulchre (as Eginhard pathetically {391} observes); and\nthe pious man could neither eat, drink, nor sleep, until he had compassed\nhis desire to re-unite the saintly colleagues. This time, apparently in\nconsequence of Deusdona's opposition to any further resurrectionist doings,\nhe took counsel with a Greek monk, one Basil, and, accompanied by Hunus,\nbut saying nothing to Deusdona, they committed another sacrilegious\nburglary, securing this time, not only the body of the blessed Petrus, but\na quantity of dust, which they agreed the priest should take, and tell his\nemployer that it was the remains of the blessed Tiburtius. How Deusdona was\n\"squared,\" and what he got for his not very valuable complicity in these\ntransactions, does not appear. But at last the relics were sent off in\ncharge of Lunison, the brother of Deusdona, and the priest Hunus, as far as\nPavia, while Ratleig stopped behind for a week to see if the robbery was\ndiscovered, and, presumably, to act as a blind if any hue and cry was\nraised. But, as everything remained quiet, the notary betook himself to\nPavia, where he found Lunison and Hunus awaiting his arrival. The notary's\nopinion of the character of his worthy colleagues, however, may be gathered\nfrom the fact that, having persuaded them to set out in advance along a\nroad which he told them he was about to take, he immediately adopted\nanother route, and, travelling by way of St. Maurice and the Lake of\nGeneva, eventually 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 {392} boot, being an accessory, both before and after the fact, to\na most 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, was\neven 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 the\nEmperor's antechamber, and began to talk to him about the miracle of the\nbloody exudation. In the course of conversation, Eginhard happened to\nallude to the remarkable fineness of the garment of the blessed\nMarcellinus. Whereupon Abbot Hildoin observed (to Eginhard's stupefaction)\nthat his observation was quite correct. Much astonished at this remark from\na person who was supposed not to have seen the relics, Eginhard asked him\nhow he knew that? Upon this, Hildoin saw that he had better make a clean\nbreast of it, and he told the following story, which he had received from\nhis priestly agent, Hunus. While Hunus and Lunison were at Pavia, waiting\nfor Eginhard's notary, Hunus (according to his own account) had robbed the\nrobbers. The relics were placed in a church and a number of laymen and\nclerics, of whom Hunus was one, undertook to keep watch over them. One\nnight, however, all the watchers, save the wide-awake Hunus, went to sleep;\nand then, according to the story which this \"sharp\" ecclesiastic foisted\nupon his patron, {393}\n\n    it was borne in upon his mind that there must be some great reason why\n    all the people, except himself, had suddenly become somnolent; and,\n    determining to avail himself of the opportunity thus offered (_oblata\n    occasione utendum_), he rose and, having lighted a candle, silently\n    approached the chests. Then, having burnt through the threads of the\n    seals with the flame of the candle, he quickly opened the chests, which\n    had no locks;[101] and, taking out portions of each of the bodies which\n    were thus exposed, he closed the chests and connected the burnt ends of\n    the threads with the seals again, so that they appeared not to have\n    been touched; and, no one having seen him, he returned to his place.\n    (Cap. iii. 23.)\n\nHildoin went on to tell Eginhard that Hunus at first declared to him that\nthese purloined relics belonged to St. Tiburtius; but afterwards confessed,\nas a great secret, how he had come by them, and he wound up his discourse\nthus:\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 may\n    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 this\nrevelation. An acquaintance of his had recently told him of a rumour that\nwas spread about that Hunus had contrived to abstract _all_ the remains of\nSS. Marcellinus and Petrus while Eginhard's agents were in a drunken sleep;\nand that, while the real relics were in Abbot Hildoin's hands at St.\nMedardus, the shrine at Seligenstadt contained nothing but a little dust.\nThough greatly annoyed by this \"execrable rumour, spread {394} everywhere\nby the subtlety of the devil,\" Eginhard had doubtless comforted himself by\nhis supposed knowledge of its falsity, and he only now discovered how\nconsiderable a foundation there was for the scandal. There was nothing for\nit but to insist upon the return of the stolen treasures. One would have\nthought that the holy man, who had admitted himself to be knowingly a\nreceiver of stolen goods, would have made instant restitution and begged\nonly for absolution. But Eginhard intimates that he had very great\ndifficulty in getting his brother abbot to see that even restitution was\nnecessary.\n\nHildoin's proceedings were not of such a nature as to lead any one to place\nimplicit confidence in anything he might say; still less had his agent,\npriest Hunus, established much claim to confidence; and it is not\nsurprising that Eginhard should have lost no time in summoning his notary\nand Lunison to his presence, in order that he might hear what they had to\nsay about the business. They, however, at once protested that priest\nHunus's story was a parcel of lies, and that after the relics left Rome no\none had any opportunity of meddling with them. Moreover, Lunison, throwing\nhimself at Eginhard's feet, confessed with many tears what actually took\nplace. It will be remembered that after the body of St. Marcellinus was\nabstracted from its tomb, Ratleig deposited it in the house of Deusdona, in\ncharge of the latter's brother, Lunison. But Hunus, being very much\ndisappointed that he could not get hold of the body of St. Tiburtius, and\nafraid to go back to his {395} abbot empty-handed, bribed Lunison with four\npieces of gold and five of silver to give him access to the chest. This\nLunison did, and Hunus helped himself to as much as would fill a gallon\nmeasure (_vas sextarii mensuram_) of the sacred remains. Eginhard's\nindignation at the \"rapine\" of this \"nequissimus nebulo\" is exquisitely\ndroll. It would appear that the adage about the receiver being as bad as\nthe thief was not current in the ninth century.\n\n\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 relics\nwhich the latter says he possesses. Eginhard makes no inquiry how he came\nby 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 and\nhelps himself.\n\nEginhard discovers by the self-betrayal of his brother abbot, Hildoin, that\nportions of his relics have been stolen and conveyed to the latter. With\nmuch ado he succeeds in getting them back.\n\nHildoin's agent, Hunus, in delivering these stolen goods to him, at first\ndeclared they were the relics of St. Tiburtius, which Hildoin desired him\nto obtain; but afterwards invented a story of their being the product of a\ntheft, which the providential drowsiness of his companions enabled him to\nperpetrate, from the relics which Hildoin well knew were the property of\nhis friend. {396}\n\nLunison, on the contrary, swears that all this story is false, and that he\nhimself was bribed by Hunus to allow him to steal what he pleased from the\nproperty confided to his own and his brother's care by their guest Ratleig.\nAnd the honest notary himself seems to have no hesitation about lying and\nstealing to any extent, where the acquisition of relics is the object in\nview.\n\nFor a parallel to these transactions one must read a police report of the\ndoings of a \"long firm\" or of a set of horse-coupers; yet Eginhard seems to\nbe aware of nothing, but that he has been rather badly used by his friend\nHildoin, and the \"nequissimus nebulo\" Hunus.\n\nIt is not easy for a modern Protestant, still less for any one who has the\nleast tincture of scientific culture, whether physical or historical, to\npicture to himself the state of mind of a man of the ninth century, however\ncultivated, enlightened, and sincere he may have been. His deepest\nconvictions, his most cherished hopes, were bound up with the belief in the\nmiraculous. Life was a constant battle between saints and demons for the\npossession of the souls of men. The most superstitious among our modern\ncountrymen turn to supernatural agencies only when natural causes seem\ninsufficient; to Eginhard and his friends the supernatural was the rule,\nand the sufficiency of natural causes was allowed only when there was\nnothing to suggest others.\n\nMoreover, it must be recollected that the possession of miracle-working\nrelics was greatly coveted, {397} not only on high, but on very low\ngrounds. To a man like Eginhard, the mere satisfaction of the religious\nsentiment was obviously a powerful attraction. But, more than this, the\npossession of such a treasure was an immense practical advantage. If the\nsaints were duly flattered and worshipped, there was no telling what\nbenefits might 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 in\ntheir Roman obscurity.\n\n    It is an aggravation of my grief and a reopening of my wound, that our\n    vows have been of no avail, and that the faith which we placed in the\n    merits and intervention of the martyrs has been utterly disappointed.\n\nWe may admit, then, without impeachment of Eginhard's sincerity, or of his\nhonour under all ordinary circumstances, that when piety, self-interest,\nthe glory of the Church in general, and that of the church at Seligenstadt\nin particular, all pulled one way, {398} even the workaday principles of\nmorality were disregarded; and, _a fortiori_, anything like proper\ninvestigation of the reality of alleged miracles was thrown to the winds.\n\nAnd if this was the condition of mind of such a man as Eginhard, what is it\nnot legitimate to suppose may have been that of Deacon Deusdona, Lunison,\nHunus, and Company, thieves and cheats by their own confession, or of the\nprobably hysterical nun, or of the professional beggars, for whose\nincapacity to walk and straighten themselves there is no guarantee but\ntheir own? Who is to make sure that the exorcist of the demon Wiggo was not\njust such another priest as Hunus; and is it not at least possible, when\nEginhard's servants dreamed, night after night, in such a curiously\ncoincident fashion, that a careful inquirer might have found they were very\nanxious 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 stirred,\nare capable of saying the thing that is not, and of acting as they should\nnot, to an extent which is hardly imaginable by persons who are not so\neasily affected by the contagion of blind faith. There is no falsity so\ngross that honest men and, still more, virtuous women, anxious to promote a\ngood cause, will not lend themselves to it without any clear consciousness\nof the moral bearings of what they are doing.\n\nThe cases of miraculously-effected cures of which Eginhard is ocular\nwitness appear to belong to classes {399} of disease in which malingering\nis possible or hysteria presumable. Without modern means of diagnosis, the\nnames given to them are quite worthless. One \"miracle,\" however, in which\nthe patient, a woman, was cured by the mere sight of the church in which\nthe relics of the blessed martyrs lay, is an unmistakable case of\ndislocation of the lower jaw; and it is obvious that, as not unfrequently\nhappens in such accidents in weakly subjects, the jaw slipped suddenly back\ninto place, perhaps in consequence of a jolt, as the woman rode towards the\nchurch. (Cap. v. 53.)[102]\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 of\nanother disease under which he laboured, took up his quarters at\nSeligenstadt, and came out as a prophet, inspired by the Archangel Gabriel.\nEginhard intimates that his prophecies were fulfilled; but as he does not\nstate exactly what they were or how they were accomplished, the statement\nmust be accepted with much caution. It is obvious that he was not the man\nto hesitate to \"ease\" a prophecy until it fitted, if the credit of the\nshrine of his favourite saints could be increased by such a procedure.\nThere is no impeachment of his honour in the supposition. The logic of the\nmatter is quite simple, if somewhat sophistical. The holiness of the church\nof the martyrs guarantees {400} the reality of the appearance of the\nArchangel Gabriel there, and what the archangel says must be true.\nTherefore, if anything seem to be wrong, that must be the mistake of the\ntransmitter; and, in justice to the archangel, it must be suppressed or set\nright. This sort of \"reconciliation\" is not unknown in quite modern times,\nand among people who would be very much shocked to be compared with a\n\"benighted papist\" of the ninth century.\n\nThe readers of this essay are, I imagine, very largely composed of people\nwho would be shocked to be regarded as anything but enlightened\nProtestants. It is not unlikely that those of them who have accompanied me\nthus 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 Petrus,\nor 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 contemporaries 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 of\na like character, which are found in documents of the dates and of the\nauthorship of which nothing is certainly determined, and no known copies of\nwhich come within two or three centuries of the {401} events they record.\nIf it be true that the four Gospels and the Acts were written by Matthew,\nMark, Luke, and John, all that we know of these persons comes to nothing in\ncomparison with our knowledge of Eginhard; and not only is there no proof\nthat the traditional authors of these works wrote them, but very strong\nreasons to the contrary may be alleged. If, therefore, you refuse to\nbelieve that \"Wiggo\" was cast out of the possessed girl on Eginhard's\nauthority, with what justice can you profess to believe that the legion of\ndevils were cast out of the man among the tombs of the Gadarenes? And if,\non the other hand, you accept Eginhard's evidence, why do you laugh at the\nsupposed efficacy of relics and the saint-worship of the modern Romanists?\nIt cannot be pretended, in the face of all evidence, that the Jews of the\nyear 30 A.D., or thereabouts, were less imbued with the belief in the\nsupernatural than were the Franks of the year 800 A.D. The same influences\nwere at work in each case, and it is only reasonable to suppose that the\nresults were the same. If the evidence of Eginhard is insufficient to lead\nreasonable men to believe in the miracles he relates, _a fortiori_ the\nevidence afforded by the Gospels and the Acts must be so.[103]\n\nBut it may be said that no serious critic denies the genuineness of the\nfour great Pauline Epistles--Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, and\n{402} Romans--and that in three out of these four Paul lays claim to the\npower of working miracles.[104] 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 nowhere\ntells us what he did in this direction; and, in his sore need to justify\nhis assumption of apostleship against the sneers of his enemies, it is\nhardly likely that if he had any very striking cases to bring forward he\nwould have neglected evidence so well calculated to put them to shame. And,\nwithout the slightest impeachment of Paul's veracity, we must further\nremember that his strongly-marked mental characteristics, displayed in\nunmistakable fashion in these Epistles, are anything but those which would\njustify us in regarding him as a critical witness respecting matters of\nfact, or as a trustworthy interpreter of their significance. When a man\ntestifies to a miracle, he not only states a fact, but he adds an\ninterpretation of the fact. We may admit his evidence as to the former, and\nyet think his opinion as to the latter worthless. If Eginhard's calm and\nobjective narrative of the historical events of his time is no guarantee\nfor the soundness of his judgment where the supernatural is concerned, the\nheated rhetoric of the Apostle of the Gentiles, his absolute confidence in\nthe \"inner light,\" and the extraordinary conceptions of the nature and\nrequirements of logical proof which he betrays, in page after page of his\nEpistles, afford still less security.\n\n{403}\n\nThere is a comparatively modern man who shared to the full Paul's trust in\nthe \"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 Britain\nand Ireland and the West India Islands, but on the continent of Europe and\nthat of North America, was no less remarkable. A few years after Fox began\nto preach, there were reckoned to be a thousand Friends in prison in the\nvarious gaols of England; at his death, less than fifty years after the\nfoundation of the sect, there were 70,000 Quakers in the United Kingdom.\nThe cheerfulness with which these people--women as well as men--underwent\nmartyrdom in this country and in the New England States is one of the most\nremarkable facts in the history of religion.\n\nNo one who reads the voluminous autobiography of \"Honest George\" can doubt\nthe man's utter truthfulness; and though, in his multitudinous letters,\n{404} he but rarely rises far above the incoherent commonplaces of a street\npreacher, there can be no question of his power as a speaker, nor any doubt\nas to the dignity and attractiveness of his personality, or of his\npossession of a large amount of practical good sense and governing faculty.\n\nBut that George Fox had full faith in his own powers as a miracle-worker,\nthe following passage of his autobiography (to which others might be added)\ndemonstrates:--\n\n    Now after I was set at liberty from Nottingham gaol (where I had been\n    kept a prisoner a pretty long time) I travelled as before, in the work\n    of the Lord. And coming to Mansfield Woodhouse, there was a distracted\n    woman, under a doctor's hand, with her hair let loose all about her\n    ears; and he was about to let her blood, she being first bound, and\n    many people being about her, holding her by violence; but he could get\n    no blood from her. And I desired them to unbind her and let her alone;\n    for they could not touch the spirit in her by which she was tormented.\n    So they did unbind her, and I was moved to speak to her, and in the\n    name of the Lord to bid her be quiet and still. And she was so. And the\n    Lord's power settled her mind and she mended; and afterwards received\n    the truth and continued in it to her death. And the Lord's name was\n    honoured; to whom the glory of all his works belongs. Many great and\n    wonderful things were wrought by the heavenly power in those days. For\n    the 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 beyond\n    what this unbelieving age is able to receive or bear.[105]\n\nIt needs no long study of Fox's writings, however, {405} to arrive at the\nconviction that the distinction between subjective and objective verities\nhad not the same place in his mind as it has in that of ordinary mortals.\nWhen an ordinary person would say \"I thought so and so,\" or \"I made up my\nmind to do so and so,\" George Fox says, \"It was opened to me,\" or \"at the\ncommand of God I did so and so.\" \"Then at the command of God, on the ninth\nday of the seventh month 1643 (Fox being just nineteen), I left my\nrelations and brake off all familiarity or friendship with young or old.\"\n\"About the beginning of the year 1647 I was moved of the Lord to go into\nDarbyshire.\" Fox hears voices and he sees visions, some of which he brings\nbefore the reader with apocalyptic power in the simple and strong English,\nalike untutored and undefiled, of which, like John Bunyan, his\ncontemporary, he was a master.\n\n\"And one morning, as I was sitting by the fire, a great cloud came over me\nand a temptation beset me; and I sate still. And it was said, _All things\ncome by Nature_. And the elements and stars came over me; so that I was in\na manner quite clouded with it.... And as I sate still under it, and let it\nalone, a living hope arose in me, and a true voice arose in me which said,\n_There is a living God who made all things_. And immediately the cloud and\nthe temptation vanished away, and life rose over it all, and my heart was\nglad and I praised the living God\" (p. 13).\n\nIf George Fox could speak, as he proves in this and some other passages he\ncould write, his {406} astounding influence on the contemporaries of Milton\nand of Cromwell is no mystery. But this modern reproduction of the ancient\nprophet, with his \"Thus saith the Lord,\" \"This is the work of the Lord,\"\nsteeped in supernaturalism and glorying in blind faith, is the mental\nantipodes of the philosopher, founded in naturalism and a fanatic for\nevidence, to whom these affirmations inevitably suggest the previous\nquestion: \"How do you know that the Lord saith it:\" \"How do you know that\nthe Lord doeth it?\" and who is compelled to demand that rational ground for\nbelief without which, to the man of science, assent is merely an immoral\npretence.\n\nAnd it is this rational ground of belief which the writers of the Gospels,\nno less than Paul, and Eginhard, and Fox, so little dream of offering that\nthey would regard the demand for it as a kind of blasphemy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{407}\n\nXI\n\nAGNOSTICISM: A REJOINDER\n\nThose who passed from Dr. Wace's article in the last number of this Review\nto the anticipatory confutation of it which followed in \"The New\nReformation,\" must have enjoyed the pleasure of a dramatic surprise--just\nas when the fifth act of a new play proves unexpectedly bright and\ninteresting. Mrs. Ward will, I hope, pardon the comparison, if I say that\nher effective clearing away of antiquated incumbrances from the lists of\nthe controversy, reminds me of nothing so much as of the action of some\nneat-handed, but strong-wristed, Phyllis, who, gracefully wielding her\nlong-handled \"Turk's head,\" sweeps away the accumulated results of the toil\nof generations of spiders. I am the more indebted to this luminous sketch\nof the results of critical investigation, as it is carried out among those\ntheologians who are men of science and not mere counsel for creeds, since\nit has relieved me from the necessity of dealing with the greater part of\nDr. Wace's polemic, and enables me to devote more space to the really\nimportant issues which have been raised.[106]\n\n{408}\n\nPerhaps, however, it may be well for me to observe that approbation of the\nmanner in which a great biblical scholar, for instance, Reuss, does his\nwork does not commit me to the adoption of all, or indeed any of his views;\nand, further, that the disagreements of a series of investigators do not in\nany way interfere with the fact that each of them has made important\ncontributions to the body of truth ultimately established. If I cite\nBuffon, Linnaeus, Lamarck, and Cuvier, as having each and all taken a\nleading share in building up modern biology, the statement that every one\nof these great naturalists disagreed with, and even more or less\ncontradicted, all the rest is quite true; but the supposition that the\nlatter assertion is in any way inconsistent with the former, would betray a\nstrange ignorance of the manner in which all true science advances.\n\nDr. Wace takes a great deal of trouble to make it appear that I have\ndesired to evade the real questions raised by his attack upon me at the\nChurch Congress. I assure the reverend Principal that in this, as in some\nother respects, he has entertained a very erroneous conception of my\nintentions. Things would assume more accurate proportions in Dr. Wace's\nmind if he would kindly remember that it is just thirty years since\necclesiastical thunderbolts {409} began to fly about my ears. I have had\nthe \"Lion and the Bear\" to deal with, and it is long since I got quite used\nto the threatenings of episcopal Goliaths, whose croziers were like unto a\nweaver's beam. So that I almost think I might not have noticed Dr. Wace's\nattack, personal as it was; and although, as he is good enough to tell us,\nseparate copies are to be had for the modest equivalent of twopence, as a\nmatter of fact, it did not come under my notice for a long time after it\nwas made. May I further venture to point out that (reckoning postage) the\nexpenditure of twopence-halfpenny, or, at the most, threepence, would have\nenabled Dr. Wace so far to comply with ordinary conventions, as to direct\nmy attention to the fact that he had attacked me before a meeting at which\nI was not present? I really am not responsible for the five months' neglect\nof which Dr. Wace complains. Singularly enough, the Englishry who swarmed\nabout the Engadine, during the three months that I was being brought back\nto life by the glorious air and perfect comfort of the Maloja, did not, in\nmy hearing, say anything about the important events which had taken place\nat the Church Congress; and I think I can venture to affirm that there was\nnot a single copy of Dr. Wace's pamphlet in any of the hotel libraries\nwhich I rummaged in search of something more edifying than dull English or\nquestionable French novels.\n\nAnd now, having, as I hope, set myself right with the public as regards the\nsins of commission and {410} omission with which I have been charged, I\nfeel free to deal with matters to which time and type may be more\nprofitably devoted.\n\nI believe that there is not a solitary argument I have used, or that I am\nabout to use, which is original, or has anything to do with the fact that I\nhave been chiefly occupied with natural science. They are all, facts and\nreasoning alike, either identical with, or consequential upon, propositions\nwhich are to be found in the works of scholars and theologians of the\nhighest repute in the only two countries, Holland and Germany,[107] in\nwhich, at the present time, professors of theology are to be found, whose\ntenure of their posts does not depend upon the results to which their\ninquiries lead them.[108] It is true that, to the best of my ability, I\nhave satisfied myself of the soundness of the foundations on which my\narguments are built, and I desire to be held fully {411} responsible for\neverything I say. But, nevertheless, my position is really no more than\nthat of an expositor; and my justification for undertaking it is simply\nthat conviction of the supremacy of private judgment (indeed, of the\nimpossibility of escaping it) which is the foundation of the Protestant\nReformation, and which was the doctrine accepted by the vast majority of\nthe Anglicans of my youth, before that backsliding towards the \"beggarly\nrudiments\" of an effete and idolatrous sacerdotalism which has, even now,\nprovided us with the saddest spectacle which has been offered to the eyes\nof Englishmen in this generation. A high court of ecclesiastical\njurisdiction, with a host of great lawyers in battle array, is and, for\nHeaven knows how long, will be, occupied with these very questions of\n\"washing of cups and pots and brazen vessels,\" which the Master, whose\nprofessed representatives are rending the Church over these squabbles, had\nin his mind when, as we are told, he uttered the scathing rebuke:--\n\n  Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,\n        This people honoureth me with their lips,\n        But their heart is far from me.\n        But in vain do they worship me,\n        Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.\n\n  (Mark vii. 6-7.)\n\nMen who can be absorbed in bickerings over miserable disputes of this kind\ncan have but little sympathy with the old evangelical doctrine of the \"open\nBible,\" or anything but a grave misgiving of the results of diligent\nreading of the Bible, without the {412} help of ecclesiastical spectacles,\nby the mass of the people. Greatly to the surprise of many of my friends, I\nhave always advocated the reading of the Bible, and the diffusion of the\nstudy of that most remarkable collection of books among the people. Its\nteachings are so infinitely superior to those of the sects, who are just as\nbusy now as the Pharisees were eighteen hundred years ago, in smothering\nthem under \"the precepts of men\"; it is so certain, to my mind, that the\nBible contains within itself the refutation of nine-tenths of the mixture\nof sophistical metaphysics and old-world superstition which has been piled\nround it by the so-called Christians of later times; it is so clear that\nthe only immediate and ready antidote to the poison which has been mixed\nwith Christianity, to the intoxication and delusion of mankind, lies in\ncopious draughts from the undefiled spring, that I exercise the right and\nduty of free judgment on the part of every man, mainly for the purpose of\ninducing other laymen to follow my example. If the New Testament is\ntranslated into Zulu by Protestant missionaries, it must be assumed that a\nZulu convert is competent to draw from its contents all the truths which it\nis necessary for him to believe. I trust that I may, without immodesty,\nclaim to be put on the same footing as the Zulu.\n\nThe most constant reproach which is launched against persons of my way of\nthinking is that it is all very well for us to talk about the deductions of\nscientific thought, but what are the poor and the {413} uneducated to do?\nHas it ever occurred to those who talk in this fashion, that their creeds\nand the articles of their several confessions, their determination of the\nexact nature and extent of the teachings of Jesus, their expositions of the\nreal meaning of that which is written in the Epistles (to leave aside all\nquestions concerning the Old Testament), are nothing more than deductions\nwhich, at any rate, profess to be the result of strictly scientific\nthinking, and which are not worth attending to unless they really possess\nthat character? If it is not historically true that such and such things\nhappened in Palestine eighteen centuries ago, what becomes of Christianity?\nAnd what is historical truth but that of which the evidence bears strict\nscientific investigation? I do not call to mind any problem of natural\nscience which 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 which\nthey contain. The Christianity of the Churches stands or falls by the\nresults of the purely scientific investigation of these questions. They\nwere first taken up in a purely scientific spirit just about a century ago;\nthey have been studied over and over again by men of vast knowledge and\ncritical acumen; but he would be a rash man who should assert that any\nsolution of these problems, as yet formulated, is exhaustive. The most that\ncan be said is that certain prevalent solutions are certainly false, while\nothers are more or less probably true. {414}\n\nIf I am doing my best to rouse my countrymen out of their dogmatic\nslumbers, it is not that they may be amused by seeing who gets the best of\nit 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 excellent\nclerical and lay gentlemen to discuss, in public meeting assembled, how\nmuch it is desirable to let the congregations of the faithful know of the\nresults of biblical criticism, is likely to wake up with anything short of\nthe grasp of a rough lay hand upon its shoulder; it is the question whether\nthe New Testament books, being, as I believe they were, written and\ncompiled by people who, according to their lights, were perfectly sincere,\nwill not, when properly studied as ordinary historical documents, afford us\nthe means of self-criticism. And it must be remembered that the New\nTestament books are not responsible for the doctrine invented by the\nChurches that they are anything but ordinary historical documents. The\nauthor of the third gospel tells us, as straightforwardly as a man can,\nthat he has no claim to any other character than that of an ordinary\ncompiler and editor, who had before him the works of many and variously\nqualified predecessors.\n\n\n\nIn my former papers, according to Dr. Wace, I have evaded giving an answer\nto his main proposition, which he states as follows-- {415}\n\n    Apart from all disputed points of criticism, no one practically doubts\n    that our Lord lived, and that He died on the cross, in the most intense\n    sense of filial relation to His Father in Heaven, and that He bore\n    testimony to that Father's providence, love, and grace towards mankind.\n    The Lord's Prayer affords a sufficient evidence on these points. If the\n    Sermon on the Mount alone be added, the whole unseen world, of which\n    the Agnostic refuses to know anything, stands unveiled before us.... If\n    Jesus Christ preached that Sermon, made those promises, and taught that\n    prayer, then any one who says that we know nothing of God, or of a\n    future life, or of an unseen world, says that he does not believe Jesus\n    Christ (pp. 354-355).\n\nAgain--\n\n    The main question at issue, in a word, is one which Professor Huxley\n    has chosen to leave entirely on one side--whether, namely, allowing for\n    the utmost uncertainty on other points of the criticism to which he\n    appeals, there is any reasonable doubt that the Lord's Prayer and the\n    Sermon on the Mount afford a true account of our Lord's essential\n    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 clearly;\nbut, as Dr. Wace wants a plainer answer, he shall certainly be gratified.\nIf, as Dr. Wace declares it is, his \"whole case is involved in\" the\nargument as stated in the latter of these two extracts, so much the worse\nfor his whole case. For I am of opinion that there is the gravest reason\nfor doubting whether the \"Sermon on the Mount\" was ever preached, and\nwhether the so-called \"Lord's Prayer\" was ever prayed, by Jesus of\nNazareth. My reasons for this opinion are, among others, these:--There is\nnow no doubt that the three Synoptic Gospels, so far from being the work of\nthree {416} independent writers, are closely interdependent,[109] and that\nin one of two ways. Either all three contain, as their foundation,\nversions, to a large extent verbally identical, of one and the same\ntradition; or two of them are thus closely dependent on the third; and the\nopinion of the majority of the best critics has of late years more and more\nconverged towards the conviction that our canonical second gospel (the\nso-called \"Mark's\" Gospel) is that which most closely represents the\nprimitive groundwork of the three.[110] That I take to be one of the most\nvalid results of New Testament criticism, of immeasurably greater\nimportance than the discussion about dates and authorship.\n\nBut if, as I believe to be the case, beyond any rational doubt or dispute,\nthe second gospel is the nearest extant representative of the oldest\ntradition, {417} 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 cardinal\nteaching\" of Jesus? Not only does \"Mark's\" gospel fail to contain the\n\"Sermon on the Mount,\" or anything but a very few of the sayings contained\nin that collection; but, at the point of the history of Jesus where the\n\"Sermon\" occurs in \"Matthew,\" there is in \"Mark\" an apparently unbroken\nnarrative from the calling of James and John to the healing of Simon's\nwife's mother. Thus the oldest tradition not only ignores the \"Sermon on\nthe Mount,\" but, by implication, raises a probability against its being\ndelivered when and where the later \"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 it\nexisted), and was bound to pay to it the deference due to the work of an\napostolic eye-witness (if he had any reason for thinking it was so)--this\nwriter, who exhibits far more literary competence than the other two,\nignores any \"Sermon on the Mount,\" such as that reported by \"Matthew,\" just\nas much as the oldest authority does. Yet \"Luke\" has a great many passages\nidentical, or parallel, with those in \"Matthew's\" \"Sermon on the Mount,\"\nwhich are, for the most part, scattered about in a totally different\nconnection. {418}\n\nInterposed, however, between the nomination of the Apostles and a visit to\nCapernaum; occupying, therefore, a place which answers to that of the\n\"Sermon on the Mount\" in the first gospel, there is, in the third gospel, a\ndiscourse which is as closely similar to the \"Sermon on the Mount,\" in some\nparticulars, as it is widely unlike it in others.\n\nThis discourse is said to have been delivered in a \"plain\" or \"level place\"\n(Luke vi. 17), and by way of distinction we may call it the \"Sermon on the\nPlain.\"\n\nI see no reason to doubt that the two Evangelists are dealing, to a\nconsiderable extent, with the same traditional material; and a comparison\nof the two \"Sermons\" suggests very strongly that \"Luke's\" version is the\nearlier. The correspondences between the two forbid the notion that they\nare independent. They both begin with a series of blessings, some of which\nare almost verbally identical. In the middle of each (Luke vi. 27-38, Matt.\nv. 43-48) there is a striking exposition of the ethical spirit of the\ncommand given in Leviticus xix. 18. And each ends with a passage containing\nthe declaration that a tree is to be known by its fruit, and the parable of\nthe house built on the sand. But while there are only 29 verses in the\n\"Sermon on the Plain\" there are 107 in the \"Sermon on the Mount;\" the\nexcess in length of the latter being chiefly due to the long\ninterpolations, one of 30 verses before and one of 34 verses after, the\nmiddlemost parallelism with Luke. Under these circumstances it is quite\nimpossible to {419} admit that there is more probability that \"Matthew's\"\nversion of the Sermon is historically accurate than there is that Luke's\nversion is so; and they cannot both be 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 the\nexistence of such a document as our canonical \"Matthew,\" a fact which does\nnot make for the genuineness, or the authority, of that book. If he did, he\nhas shown that he does not care for its authority on a matter of fact of no\nsmall importance; and that does not permit us to conceive that he believed\nthe first gospel to be the work of an authority to whom he ought to defer,\nlet alone that of an apostolic eye-witness.\n\nThe tradition of the Church about the second gospel, which I believe to be\nquite 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 Peter\neither did not know, or did not care very much for, that account of the\n\"essential belief and cardinal teaching\" of Jesus which is contained in the\nSermon on the Mount; and, certainly, he could not have shared Dr. Wace's\nview of its importance.[111]\n\n{420}\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 whether\nthere is \"any reasonable doubt\" that the Sermon on the Mount was preached\nby Jesus of Nazareth? If conjecture is permissible, where nothing else is\npossible, the most probable conjecture seems to be that \"Matthew,\" having a\n_cento_ of sayings attributed--rightly or wrongly it is impossible to\nsay--to Jesus, among his materials, thought they were, or might be, records\nof a continuous discourse, and put them in at the place he thought\nlikeliest. Ancient historians of the highest character saw no harm in\ncomposing long speeches which never were spoken, and putting them into the\nmouths of statesmen and warriors; and I presume that whoever is represented\nby \"Matthew\" would have been grievously astonished to find that any one\nobjected to his following the example of the best models accessible to him.\n\nSo with the \"Lord's Prayer.\" Absent in our representative of the oldest\ntradition, it appears in both \"Matthew\" and \"Luke.\" There is reason to\nbelieve that every pious Jew, at the commencement of our era, prayed three\ntimes a day, according to a formula which is embodied in the present\n_Schmone-Esre_[112] of {421} 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 whether\nthe 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 list\nof the verities which he imagines to be unassailable, \"The Story of the\nPassion.\" I am not quite sure what he means by this. I am not aware that\nany one (with the exception of certain ancient heretics) has propounded\ndoubts as to the reality of the crucifixion; and certainly I have no\ninclination to argue about the precise accuracy of every detail of that\npathetic story of suffering and wrong. But, if Dr. Wace means, as I suppose\nhe does, that that which, according to the orthodox view, happened after\nthe crucifixion, and which is, in a dogmatic sense, the most important part\nof the story, is founded on solid historical proofs, I must beg leave to\nexpress a diametrically opposite conviction.\n\nWhat do we find when the accounts of the events in question, contained in\nthe three Synoptic gospels, are compared together? In the oldest, there is\na simple, straightforward statement which, for anything that I have to urge\nto the contrary, may be exactly true. In the other two, there is, round\nthis possible and probable nucleus, a mass of accretions of the most\nquestionable character. {422}\n\nThe cruelty of death by crucifixion depended very much upon its lingering\ncharacter. If there were a support for the weight of the body, as not\nunfrequently was the practice, the pain during the first hours of the\ninfliction was not, necessarily, extreme; nor need any serious physical\nsymptoms, at once, arise from the wounds made by the nails in the hands and\nfeet, supposing they were nailed, which was not invariably the case. When\nexhaustion set in, and hunger, thirst, and nervous irritation had done\ntheir work, the agony of the sufferer must have been terrible; and the more\nterrible that, in the absence of any effectual disturbance of the machinery\nof physical life, it might be prolonged for many hours, or even days.\nTemperate, strong men, such as were the ordinary Galilean peasants, might\nlive for several days on the cross. It is necessary to bear these facts in\nmind when we read the account contained in the fifteenth chapter of the\nsecond gospel.\n\nJesus was crucified at the third hour (xv. 25), and the narrative seems to\nimply that he died immediately after the ninth hour (_v._ 34). In this\ncase, he would have been crucified only six hours; and the time spent on\nthe cross cannot have been much longer, because Joseph of Arimathaea must\nhave gone to Pilate, made his preparations, and deposited the body in the\nrock-cut tomb before sunset, which, at that time of the year, was about the\ntwelfth hour. That any one should die after only six hours' crucifixion\ncould not have been at all in accordance with Pilate's large experience of\nthe effects of that method of {423} punishment. It, therefore, quite agrees\nwith what might be expected if Pilate \"marvelled if he were already dead\"\nand required to be satisfied on this point by the testimony of the Roman\nofficer who was in command of the execution party. Those who have paid\nattention to the extraordinarily difficult question, What are the\nindisputable signs of death?--will be able to estimate the value of the\nopinion of a rough soldier on such a subject; even if his report to the\nProcurator were in no wise affected by the fact that the friend of Jesus,\nwho anxiously awaited his answer, was a man of influence and of wealth.\n\nThe inanimate body, wrapped in linen, was deposited in a spacious,[113]\ncool rock chamber, the entrance of which was closed, not by a well-fitting\ndoor, but by a stone rolled against the opening, which would of course\nallow free passage of air. A little more than thirty-six hours afterwards\n(Friday 6 P.M., to Sunday 6 A.M., or a little after) three women visit the\ntomb and find it empty. And they are told by a young man \"arrayed in a\nwhite robe\" that Jesus is gone to his native country of Galilee, and that\nthe disciples and Peter will find him there.\n\nThus it stands, plainly recorded, in the oldest tradition that, for any\nevidence to the contrary, the sepulchre may have been vacated at any time\nduring the Friday or Saturday nights. If it is said that no Jew would have\nviolated the Sabbath by taking the former course, it is to be recollected\nthat Joseph of {424} Arimathaea might well be familiar with that wise and\nliberal interpretation of the fourth commandment, which permitted works of\nmercy to men--nay even the drawing of an ox or an ass out of a pit--on the\nSabbath. At any rate, the Saturday night was free to the most scrupulous of\nobservers of the Law.\n\nThese are the facts of the case as stated by the oldest extant narrative of\nthem. 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 ready\nto accept it as an historical fact, that so much and no more is positively\nknown of the end of Jesus of Nazareth. On what grounds can a reasonable man\nbe asked to believe any more? So far as the narrative in the first gospel,\non the one hand, and those in the third gospel and the Acts, on the other,\ngo beyond what is stated in the second gospel, they are hopelessly\ndiscrepant with one another. And this is the more significant because the\npregnant phrase \"some doubted,\" in the first gospel, is ignored in the\nthird.\n\nBut it is said that we have the witness Paul speaking to us directly in the\nEpistles. There is little doubt that we have, and a very singular witness\nhe is. According to his own showing, Paul, in the vigour of his manhood,\nwith every means of becoming acquainted, at first hand, with the evidence\nof eyewitnesses, not merely refused to credit them, but \"persecuted the\nchurch of God and made havoc of it.\" The reasoning of Stephen fell dead\nupon the acute intellect of this zealot for the traditions of {425} his\nfathers: his eyes were blind to the ecstatic illumination of the martyr's\ncountenance \"as it had been the face of an angel;\" and when, at the words\n\"Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right\nhand of God,\" the murderous mob rushed upon and stoned the rapt disciple of\nJesus, Paul ostentatiously made 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 to\n    Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me; but I went away into\n    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 else, I am not called upon to\ndispute the right of that person to be satisfied. But I certainly have the\nright to say that it would not satisfy me, in like case; that I should be\nvery much ashamed to pretend that it could, or ought to, satisfy me; and\nthat I can entertain but a very low estimate of the value of the evidence\nof people who are to be satisfied in this fashion, when questions of\nobjective fact, in which their faith is interested, are concerned. So that\nwhen I am called upon to believe a great deal more than the oldest gospel\ntells me about the final events of the history of Jesus on the authority of\nPaul (1 Corinthians xv. 5-8) I must pause. Did he think it, {426} at any\nsubsequent time, worth while \"to confer with flesh and blood,\" or, in\nmodern phrase, to re-examine the facts for himself? or was he ready to\naccept anything that fitted in with his preconceived ideas? Does he mean,\nwhen he speaks of all the appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion as if\nthey were of the same kind, that they were all visions, like the\nmanifestation to himself? And, finally, how is this account to be\nreconciled with those in the first and third gospels--which, as we have\nseen, disagree with one another?\n\nUntil these questions are satisfactorily answered, I am afraid that, so far\nas I am concerned, Paul's testimony cannot be seriously regarded, except as\nit may afford evidence of the state of traditional opinion at the time at\nwhich he wrote, say between 55 and 60 A.D.; that is, more than twenty years\nafter the event; a period much more than sufficient for the development of\nany amount of mythology about matters of which nothing was really known. A\nfew years later, among the contemporaries and neighbours of the Jews, and,\nif the most probable interpretation of the Apocalypse can be trusted, among\nthe followers of Jesus also, it was fully believed, in spite of all the\nevidence to the contrary, that the Emperor Nero was not really dead, but\nthat he was hidden away somewhere in the East, and would speedily come\nagain at the head of a great army, to be revenged upon his enemies.[114]\n\nThus, I conceive that I have shown cause for the {427} opinion that Dr.\nWace's challenge touching the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and\nthe Passion was more valorous than discreet. After all this discussion, I\nam still 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,[115] or not. As Dr. Wace admits that I have dissipated his lingering\nshade of unbelief about the bedevilment of the Gadarene pigs, he might have\ndone something to help mine. Instead of that, he manifests a total want of\nconception of the nature of the obstacles which impede the conversion of\nhis \"infidels.\"\n\nThe truth I believe to be, that the difficulties in the way of arriving at\na sure conclusion as to these matters, from the Sermon on the Mount, the\nLord's Prayer, or any other data offered by the Synoptic gospels (and _a\nfortiori_ from the fourth gospel), are insuperable. Every one of these\nrecords is coloured by the prepossessions of those among whom the primitive\ntraditions arose, and of those by whom they were collected and edited; and\nthe difficulty of making allowance for these prepossessions is enhanced by\nour ignorance of the exact dates at which the documents were first put\ntogether; of the extent to {428} which they have been subsequently worked\nover and interpolated; and of the historical sense, or want of sense, and\nthe dogmatic tendencies of their compilers and editors. Let us see if there\nis any other road which will take us into something better than negation.\n\nThere is a widespread notion that the \"primitive Church,\" while under the\nguidance of the Apostles and their immediate successors, was a sort of\ndogmatic dovecot, pervaded by the most loving unity and doctrinal harmony.\nProtestants, especially, are fond of attributing to themselves the merit of\nbeing nearer \"the Church of the Apostles\" than their neighbours; and they\nare the less to be excused for their strange delusion because they are\ngreat readers of the documents which prove the exact contrary. The fact is\nthat, in the course of the first three centuries of its existence, the\nChurch rapidly underwent a process of evolution of the most remarkable\ncharacter, the final stage of which is far more different from the first\nthan Anglicanism is from Quakerism. The key to the comprehension of the\nproblem of the origin of that which is now called \"Christianity,\" and its\nrelation to Jesus of Nazareth, lies here. Nor can we arrive at any sound\nconclusion as to what it is probable that Jesus actually said and did\nwithout being clear on this head. By far the most important and\nsubsequently influential steps in the evolution of Christianity took place\nin the course of the century, more or less, which followed upon the\ncrucifixion. It is almost the darkest period of Church {429} history, but,\nmost fortunately, the beginning and the end of the period are brightly\nilluminated by the contemporary evidence of two writers of whose historical\nexistence there is no doubt,[116] and against the genuineness of whose most\nimportant works there is no widely-admitted objection. These are Justin,\nthe philosopher and martyr, and Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. I shall\ncall upon these witnesses only to testify to the condition of opinion among\nthose who 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.[117] These are:--\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 insist\non 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 that\nGentile converts need not observe the Law. _Saved_ (in Justin's opinion;\nbut some of his fellow-Christians think the contrary).\n\n4. Gentile converts to the belief in Jesus as the Christ, who observe the\nLaw. _Saved_ (possibly).\n\n5. Gentile believers in Jesus as the Christ, who do {430} not observe the\nLaw themselves (except so far as the refusal of idol sacrifices), but do\nnot consider those who do observe it heretics. _Saved_ (this is Justin's\nown view).\n\n6. Gentile believers who do not observe the Law, except in refusing idol\nsacrifices, and hold those who do observe it to be heretics. _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 Jesus\nand his pre-existence as the \"Logos\" or \"Word.\" He conceives the Logos to\nbe a second God, inferior to the first, unknowable, God, with respect to\nwhom Justin, like Philo, is a complete agnostic. The Holy Spirit is not\nregarded by Justin as a separate personality, and is often mixed up with\nthe \"Logos.\" The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul is, for\nJustin, a heresy; and he is as firm a believer in the resurrection of the\nbody, as in the speedy Second Coming and establishment of 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 Rome,\nprobably with Alexandria, and it is likely that he knew {431} the state of\nopinion throughout the length and breadth of the Christian world as well as\nany man of his time. If the various categories above enumerated are\narranged in a series thus:--\n\n                      _Justin's Christianity_\n                       /--------^--------\\\n    _Orthodox_  _Judaeo-Christianity_          _Idolothytic_\n    _Judaism_    /----^-----\\                 _Christianity_    _Paganism_\n       I.       II.   III.  IV.     V.   VI.     VII.              VIII.\n\nit is obvious that they form a gradational series from orthodox Judaism, on\nthe 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; namely,\nthose who insist on circumcision and other observances of the Law on the\npart of Gentile converts; that is to say, the strict Judaeo-Christians\n(II.); and, on the other hand, those who assert the lawfulness of eating\nmeat offered to idols--whether they are Gnostic or not (VII.) These last I\nhave called \"idolothytic\" Christians, because I cannot devise a better\nname, not because it is strictly defensible etymologically.\n\nAt the present moment, I do not suppose there is an English missionary in\nany heathen land who would trouble himself whether the materials of his\ndinner had been previously offered to idols or not. On the other hand, I\nsuppose there is no Protestant sect within the pale of orthodoxy, to say\nnothing of the Roman and Greek Churches, which would hesitate to declare\nthe practice of circumcision and the {432} observance of the Jewish Sabbath\nand 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               _Judaeo-Christianity_       _Modern Christianity_  _Paganism_\n    _Judaism_   /-------^-------\\         /----------^---------\\  |\n       I.      II.    III.     IV.   V.  VI.       VII.        VIII.\n\nFor, though it includes VII., and even, in saint and relic worship, cuts a\n\"monstrous cantle\" out of paganism, it excludes, not only all\nJudaeo-Christians, but all who doubt that such are heretics. Ever since the\nthirteenth century, the Inquisition would have cheerfully burned, and in\nSpain did abundantly burn, all persons who came under the categories II.,\nIII., IV., V. And the wolf would play the same havoc now, if it could only\nget its blood-stained jaws free from the muzzle imposed by the secular arm.\n\nFurther, there is not a Protestant body except the Unitarian, which would\nnot declare Justin himself a heretic, on account of his doctrine of the\ninferior godship of the Logos; while I am very much afraid that, in strict\nlogic, Dr. Wace would be under the necessity, so painful to him, of calling\nhim an \"infidel,\" on the same and on other grounds.\n\nNow let us turn to our other authority. If there is any result of critical\ninvestigations of the sources of Christianity which is certain,[118] it is\nthat Paul of {433} Tarsus wrote the Epistle to the Galatians somewhere\nbetween the years 55 and 60 A.D., that is to say, roughly, twenty, or\nfive-and-twenty years after the crucifixion. If this is so, the Epistle to\nthe Galatians is one of the oldest, if not the very oldest, of extant\ndocumentary evidences of the state of the primitive Church. And, be it\nobserved, if it is Paul's writing, it unquestionably furnishes us with the\nevidence of a participator in the transactions narrated. With the exception\nof two or three of the other Pauline epistles, there is not one solitary\nbook in the New Testament of the authorship and authority of which we have\nsuch good evidence.\n\nAnd what is the state of things we find disclosed? A bitter quarrel, in his\naccount of which Paul by no means minces matters, or hesitates to hurl\ndefiant sarcasms against those who were \"reputed to be pillars:\" James,\n\"the brother of the Lord,\" Peter, the rock on whom Jesus is said to have\nbuilt his Church, and John, \"the beloved disciple.\" And no deference toward\n\"the rock\" withholds Paul from charging Peter to his face with\n\"dissimulation.\"\n\nThe subject of the hot dispute was simply this. Were Gentile converts bound\nto obey the Law or not? Paul answered in the negative; and, acting upon his\nopinion, had created at Antioch (and elsewhere) a specifically \"Christian\"\ncommunity, the sole qualifications for admission into which were the\nconfession of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, and baptism upon that\nconfession. In the epistle in question, Paul puts this--his \"gospel,\" as he\ncalls {434} it--in its most extreme form. Not only does he deny the\nnecessity of conformity with the Law, but he declares such conformity to\nhave a negative value. \"Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye receive\ncircumcision, Christ will profit you nothing\" (Galatians v. 2). He calls\nthe legal observances \"beggarly rudiments,\" and anathematises every one who\npreaches to the Galatians any other gospel than his own. That is to say, by\ndirect consequence, he anathematises the Nazarenes of Jerusalem, whose zeal\nfor the Law is testified by James in a passage of the Acts cited further\non. In 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 the\nsake of the weaker brethren. On the other hand, the Nazarenes of Jerusalem\nmost strenuously opposed Paul's \"gospel,\" insisting on every convert\nbecoming a regular Jewish proselyte, and consequently on his observance of\nthe whole Law; and this party was led by James and Peter and John\n(Galatians ii. 9). Paul does not suggest that the question of principle was\nsettled by the discussion referred to in Galatians. All he says is that it\nended in the practical agreement that he and Barnabas should do as they had\nbeen doing, in respect to the Gentiles; while James and Peter and John\nshould deal in their own fashion with Jewish converts. Afterwards, he\ncomplains bitterly of Peter, because, when on a visit to Antioch, he at\nfirst inclined to Paul's view, and ate with the Gentile converts; but when\n\"certain came from James,\" {435} \"drew back, and separated himself, fearing\nthem that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled\nlikewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their\ndissimulation\" (Galatians ii. 12-13).\n\nThere is but one conclusion to be drawn from Paul's account of this famous\ndispute, the settlement of which determined the fortunes of the nascent\nreligion. It is that the disciples at Jerusalem, headed by \"James, the\nLord's brother,\" and by the leading apostles, Peter and John, were strict\nJews, who had objected to admit any converts into their body, unless these,\neither by birth, or by becoming proselytes, were also strict Jews. In fact,\nthe sole difference between James and Peter and John, with the body of the\ndisciples whom they led, and the Jews by whom they were surrounded, and\nwith whom they for many years shared the religious observances of the\nTemple, was that they believed that the Messiah, whom the leaders of the\nnation yet looked for, had already 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 so\ngraphic a description, if that is correct, is unmistakably coloured with\nall the art of a reconciler, anxious to cover up a scandal. But it is none\nthe less instructive on this account. The judgment of the \"council\"\ndelivered by James is that the Gentile converts shall merely \"abstain from\nthings {436} sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from things strangled,\nand from fornication.\" But notwithstanding the accommodation in which the\nwriter of the Acts would have us believe, the Jerusalem Church held to its\nendeavour to retain the observance of the Law. Long after the conference,\nsome time after the writing of the Epistles to the Galatians and\nCorinthians, and immediately after the despatch of that to the Romans, Paul\nmakes his last visit to Jerusalem, and presents himself to James and all\nthe elders. And this is what the Acts tells us of the interview:--\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 they\n    are all zealous for the law; and they have been informed concerning\n    thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to\n    forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither\n    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 have\n    been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself walkest orderly,\n    keeping the law (_ibid._ 24).[119]\n\nHow far Paul could do what he is here requested to do, and which the writer\nof the Acts goes on to say he did, with a clear conscience, if he wrote the\nEpistles to the Galatians and Corinthians, I may leave any candid reader of\nthese epistles to decide. The {437} point to which I wish to direct\nattention is the declaration that the Jerusalem Church, led by the brother\nof Jesus and by his personal disciples and friends, twenty years and more\nafter his death, consisted of strict and zealous Jews.\n\nTertullus, the orator, caring very little about the internal dissensions of\nthe followers of Jesus, speaks of Paul as a \"ringleader of the sect of the\nNazarenes\" (Acts xxiv. 5), which must have affected James much in the same\nway as it would have moved the Archbishop of Canterbury, in George Fox's\nday, to hear the latter called a \"ringleader of the sect of Anglicans.\" In\nfact, \"Nazarene\" was, as is well known, the distinctive appellation applied\nto Jesus; his immediate followers were known as Nazarenes; while the\ncongregation of the disciples, and, later, of converts at Jerusalem--the\nJerusalem Church--was emphatically the \"sect of the Nazarenes,\" no more in\nitself to be regarded as anything outside Judaism than the sect of the\nSadducees or of the Essenes.[120] In fact, the tenets of both the Sadducees\nand the Essenes diverged much more widely from the Pharisaic standard of\northodoxy than Nazarenism 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 the\nNazarenes--presided over by James, \"the brother of the Lord,\" and\ncomprising within their body all the twelve {438} apostles--belonged to\nJustin's second category of \"Jews who observe the Law, believe Jesus to be\nthe 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; and\nit would seem that it was to these converts, who would come under Justin's\nfifth category, that the title of \"Christian\" was first applied. If any of\nthese Christians had acted upon the more than half-permission given by\nPaul, and had eaten meats offered to idols, they would have belonged to\nJustin's seventh category.\n\nHence, it appears that, if Justin's opinion, which was probably that of the\nChurch generally in the middle of the second century, was correct, James\nand Peter and John and their followers could not be saved; neither could\nPaul, if he carried into practice his views as to the indifference of\neating 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 series\nin the nineteenth century, was at the extreme left, just before the middle\nof the first century, when the \"sect of the Nazarenes\" constituted the\nwhole church founded by Jesus and the apostles; while, in the time of\nJustin, it lay midway between the two. It is therefore a profound mistake\nto imagine that the Judaeo-Christians (Nazarenes and Ebionites) of later\ntimes were heretical outgrowths from a primitive universalist\n\"Christianity.\" On the {439} contrary, the universalist \"Christianity\" is\nan outgrowth from the primitive, purely Jewish, Nazarenism; which,\ngradually eliminating all the ceremonial and dietary parts of the Jewish\nlaw, has thrust aside its parent, and all the intermediate stages of its\ndevelopment, into the position of damnable heresies.\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 make\ndisciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and\nof the Son and of the Holy Ghost,\" are part of the last commands of Jesus,\nissued at the moment of his parting with the eleven. If so, Peter and John\nmust have heard these words; they are too plain to be misunderstood; and\nthe occasion is too solemn for them ever to be forgotten. Yet the \"Acts\"\ntell us that Peter needed a vision to enable him so much as to baptize\nCornelius; and Paul, in the Galatians, knows nothing of words which would\nhave completely borne him out as against those who, though they heard, must\nbe supposed to have either forgotten or ignored them. On the other hand,\nPeter and John, who are supposed to have heard the \"Sermon on the Mount,\"\nknow nothing of the saying that Jesus had not come to destroy the Law, but\nthat every jot and tittle of the Law must be fulfilled, which surely would\nhave been pretty good evidence for their view of the question. {440}\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 in\naccordance 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. If\nthat is so, then, most assuredly, Matthew was no dullard; and as for the\nfourth gospel--a theosophic romance of the first order--it could have been\nwritten by none but a man of remarkable literary capacity, who had drunk\ndeep of Alexandrian philosophy. Moreover, the doctrine of the writer of the\nfourth gospel is more remote from that of the \"sect of the Nazarenes\" than\nis that of Paul himself. I am quite aware that orthodox critics have been\ncapable of maintaining that John, the Nazarene, who was probably well past\nfifty years of age when he is supposed to have written the most thoroughly\nJudaising book in the New Testament--the Apocalypse--in the roughest of\nGreek, underwent an astounding metamorphosis of both doctrine and style by\nthe time he reached the ripe age of ninety or so, and provided the world\nwith a history in which the acutest critic cannot [always] make out where\nthe speeches of Jesus end and the text of the narrative begins; while that\nnarrative is utterly irreconcilable, in regard to matters of fact, with\nthat of his fellow-apostle, Matthew. {441}\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 who were taught by them up to the year 50 A.D., were\nnot \"Christians\" in the sense in which that term has been understood ever\nsince its asserted origin at Antioch, but Jews--strict orthodox Jews--whose\nbelief in the Messiahship of Jesus never led to their exclusion from the\nTemple services, nor would have shut them out from the wide embrace of\nJudaism.[121] The open proclamation of their special view about the Messiah\nwas doubtless offensive to the Pharisees, just as rampant Low Churchism is\noffensive to bigoted High Churchism in our own country; or as any kind of\ndissent is offensive to fervid religionists of all creeds. To the\nSadducees, no doubt, the political danger of any Messianic movement was\nserious; and they would have been glad to put down Nazarenism, lest it\nshould end in useless rebellion against their Roman masters, like that\nother Galilean movement headed by Judas, a generation earlier. Galilee was\nalways a hotbed of seditious enthusiasm against the rule of Rome; and high\npriest and procurator alike had need to keep a sharp eye upon natives of\nthat district. On the whole, however, the Nazarenes were but little\ntroubled for the first twenty years of their existence; and the undying\nhatred of the Jews against those later {442} converts, whom they regarded\nas apostates and fautors of a sham Judaism, was awakened by Paul. From\ntheir point of view, he was a mere renegade Jew, opposed alike to orthodox\nJudaism and to orthodox Nazarenism, and whose teachings threatened Judaism\nwith destruction. And, from their point of view, they were quite right. In\nthe course of a century, Pauline influences had a large share in driving\nprimitive Nazarenism from being the very heart of the new faith into the\nposition of scouted error; and the spirit of Paul's doctrine continued its\nwork of driving Christianity farther and farther away from Judaism, until\n\"meats offered to idols\" might be eaten without scruple, while the Nazarene\nmethods of observing even the Sabbath, or the Passover, were branded with\nthe mark of Judaising heresy.\n\nBut if the primitive Nazarenes of whom the Acts speaks were orthodox Jews,\nwhat sort of probability can there be that Jesus was anything else? How can\nhe have founded the universal religion which was not heard of till twenty\nyears after his death?[122] That Jesus possessed in a rare degree the gift\nof attaching men to his person and to his fortunes; that he was the author\nof many a striking saying, and the advocate of equity, of love, and of\nhumility; that he may have disregarded the subtleties of the bigots for\nlegal observance, and appealed rather to those noble {443} conceptions of\nreligion which constituted the pith and kernel of the teaching of the great\nprophets of his nation seven hundred years earlier; and that, in the last\nscenes of his career, he may have embodied the ideal sufferer of Isaiah,\nmay be, as I think it is, extremely probable. But all this involves not a\nstep beyond the borders of orthodox Judaism. Again, who is to say whether\nJesus proclaimed himself the veritable Messiah, expected by his nation\nsince the appearance of the pseudo-prophetic work of Daniel, a century and\na half 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 coming\nof the Messiah which was shared by all parties in the primitive Church,\nwhether Nazarene or Pauline; which Jesus is made to prophesy, over and over\nagain, in the Synoptic gospels; and which dominated the life of Christians\nduring the first century after the crucifixion;--if he believed and taught\nthat, then assuredly he was under an illusion, and he is responsible for\nthat which the mere effluxion of time has demonstrated to be a prodigious\nerror.\n\n\n\nWhen I ventured to doubt \"whether any Protestant theologian who has a\nreputation to lose will say that he believes the Gadarene story,\" it\nappears that I reckoned without Dr. Wace, who, referring to this passage in\nmy paper, says:--\n\n    He will judge whether I fall under his description; but I repeat that I\n    believe it, and that he has removed the only objection to my believing\n    it (p. 363).\n\n{444}\n\nFar be it from me to set myself up as a judge of any such delicate question\nas that put before me; but I think I may venture to express the conviction\nthat, in the matter of courage, Dr. Wace has raised for himself a monument\n_aere perennius_. For really, in my poor judgment, a certain splendid\nintrepidity, such as one admires in the leader of a forlorn hope, is\nmanifested by Dr. Wace when he solemnly affirms that he believes the\nGadarene story on the evidence offered. I feel less complimented perhaps\nthan I ought to do, when I am told that I have been an accomplice in\nextinguishing in Dr. Wace's mind the last glimmer of doubt which common\nsense may have suggested. In fact, I must disclaim all responsibility for\nthe use to which the information I supplied has been put. I formally\ndecline to admit that the expression of my ignorance whether devils, in the\nexistence of which I do not believe, if they did exist, might or might not\nbe made to go out of men into pigs, can, as a matter of logic, have been of\nany use whatever to a person who already believed in devils and in the\nhistorical accuracy of the gospels.\n\nOf the Gadarene story, Dr. Wace, with all solemnity and twice over, affirms\nthat he \"believes it.\" I am sorry to trouble him further, but what does he\nmean by \"it\"? Because there are two stories, one in \"Mark\" and \"Luke,\" and\nthe other in \"Matthew.\" In the former, which I quoted in my previous paper,\nthere is one possessed man; in the latter there are two. The story is told\nfully, with the vigorous homely diction and the {445} picturesque details\nof a piece of folklore, in the second gospel. The immediately antecedent\nevent is the storm on the Lake of Gennesaret. The immediately consequent\nevents are the message from the ruler of the synagogue and the healing of\nthe woman with an issue of blood. In the third gospel, the order of events\nis exactly the same, and there is an extremely close general and verbal\ncorrespondence between the narratives of the miracle. Both agree in stating\nthat there was only one possessed man, and that he was the residence of\nmany devils, whose name was \"Legion.\"\n\nIn the first gospel, the event which immediately precedes the Gadarene\naffair is, as before, the storm; the message from the ruler and the healing\nof the issue are separated from it by the accounts of the healing of a\nparalytic, of the calling of Matthew, and of a discussion with some\nPharisees. Again, while the second gospel speaks of the country of the\n\"Gerasenes\" as the locality of the event, the third gospel has \"Gerasenes,\"\n\"Gergesenes,\" and \"Gadarenes\" in different ancient MSS.; while the first\nhas \"Gadarenes.\"\n\nThe really important points to be noticed, however, in the narrative of the\nfirst gospel, are these--that there are two possessed men instead of one;\nand that while the story is abbreviated by omissions, what there is of it\nis often verbally identical with the corresponding passages in the other\ntwo gospels. The most unabashed of reconcilers cannot well say that one man\nis the same as two, or two as one; and, {446} though the suggestion really\nhas been made, that two different miracles, agreeing in all essential\nparticulars, except the number of the possessed, were effected immediately\nafter the storm on the lake, I should be sorry to accuse any one of\nseriously adopting it. Nor will it be pretended that the allegory refuge is\naccessible in this particular case.\n\nSo, when Dr. Wace says that he believes in the synoptic evangelists'\naccount of the miraculous bedevilment of swine, I may fairly ask which of\nthem does he believe? Does he hold by the one evangelist's story, or by\nthat of the two evangelists? And having made his election, what reasons has\nhe to give for his choice? If it is suggested that the witness of two is to\nbe taken against that of one, not only is the testimony dealt with in that\ncommonsense fashion against which the theologians of his school protest so\nwarmly; not only is all question of inspiration at an end, but the further\ninquiry arises, After all, is it the testimony of two against one? Are the\nauthors of the versions in the second and the third gospels really\nindependent witnesses? In order to answer this question, it is only needful\nto place the English versions of the two side by side, and compare them\ncarefully. It will then be seen that the coincidences between them, not\nmerely in substance, but in arrangement, and in the use of identical words\nin the same order, are such, that only two alternatives are conceivable:\neither one evangelist freely copied from the other, or both based\nthemselves upon a common source, which may either have been a written {447}\ndocument, or a definite oral tradition learned by heart. Assuredly, these\ntwo testimonies are not those of independent witnesses. Further, when the\nnarrative in the first gospel is compared with that in the other two, the\nsame fact comes out.\n\nSupposing, then, that Dr. Wace is right in his assumption that Matthew,\nMark, and Luke wrote the works which we find attributed to them by\ntradition, what is the value of their agreement, even that something more\nor less like this particular miracle occurred, since it is demonstrable,\neither that all depend on some antecedent statement, of the authorship of\nwhich nothing is known, or that two are dependent upon the third?\n\nDr. Wace says he believes the Gadarene story; whichever version of it he\naccepts, therefore, he believes that Jesus said what he is stated in all\nthe versions to have said, and thereby virtually declared that the theory\nof the nature of the spiritual world involved in the story is true. Now I\nhold that this theory is false, that it is a monstrous and mischievous\nfiction; and I unhesitatingly express my disbelief in any assertion that it\nis true, by whomsoever made. So that, if Dr. Wace is right in his belief,\nhe is also quite right in classing me among the people he calls \"infidels\";\nand although I cannot fulfil the eccentric expectation that I shall glory\nin a title which, from my point of view, it would be simply silly to adopt,\nI certainly shall rejoice not to be reckoned among \"Christians\" so long as\nthe profession of belief in such stories as the Gadarene pig affair, on the\n{448} strength of a tradition of unknown origin, of which two discrepant\nreports, also of unknown origin, alone remain, forms any part of the\nChristian faith. And, although I have, more than once, repudiated the gift\nof prophecy, yet I think I may venture to express the anticipation, that if\n\"Christians\" generally are going to follow the line taken by Dr. Wace, it\nwill not be long before all men of common sense qualify for a place among\nthe \"infidels.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{449}\n\nXII\n\nAGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY\n\n    Nemo ergo ex me scire quaerat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte ut\n    nescire discat.--AUGUSTINUS, _De Civ. Dei_, xii. 7.\n\n[123]The present discussion has arisen out of the use, which has become\ngeneral in the last few years, of the terms \"Agnostic\" and \"Agnosticism.\"\n\nThe people who call themselves \"Agnostics\" have been charged with doing so\nbecause they have not the courage to declare themselves \"Infidels.\" It has\nbeen insinuated that they have adopted a new name in order to escape the\nunpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination. To this wholly\nerroneous imputation, I have replied by showing that the term \"Agnostic\"\ndid, as a matter of fact, arise in a manner which negatives it; and my\nstatement has not been, and cannot be, refuted. Moreover, speaking for\nmyself, and without impugning the right of any other person to use the term\nin another sense, I further say that Agnosticism {450} is not properly\ndescribed as a \"negative\" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except\nin so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle,\nwhich is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in\nvarious ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to\nsay that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he\ncan produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what\nAgnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to\nAgnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the\ncontrary doctrine, 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 concerned;\nyet that the application of that principle results in the denial of, or the\nsuspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting\nwhich our contemporary ecclesiastical \"gnostics\" profess entire certainty.\nAnd, in so far as these ecclesiastical persons can be justified in their\nold-established {451} custom (which many nowadays think more honoured in\nthe breach than the observance) of using opprobrious names to those who\ndiffer from them, I fully admit their right to call me and those who think\nwith me \"Infidels:\" all I have ventured to urge is that they must not\nexpect us to speak of ourselves by that title.\n\nThe extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the\ninvestigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according\nto the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual Agnostic. I\ndo not very much care to speak of anything as \"unknowable.\" What I am sure\nabout is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which,\nso far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these\nthings are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which\nis beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to\nthe probabilities of the case. Relatively to myself, I am quite sure that\nthe region of uncertainty--the nebulous country in which words play the\npart of realities--is far more extensive than I could wish. Materialism and\nIdealism; Theism and Atheism; the doctrine of the soul and its mortality or\nimmortality--appear in the history of philosophy like the shades of\nScandinavian heroes, eternally slaying one another and eternally coming to\nlife again in a metaphysical \"Nifelheim.\" It is getting on for twenty-five\ncenturies, at least, since mankind began seriously to give their minds to\nthese topics. {452} Generation after generation, philosophy has been doomed\nto roll the stone uphill; and, just as all the world swore it was at the\ntop, down it has rolled to the bottom again. All this is written in\ninnumerable books; and he who will toil through them will discover that the\nstone is just where it was when the work began. Hume saw this; Kant saw it;\nsince their time, more and more eyes have been cleansed of the films which\nprevented them from seeing it; until now the weight and number of those who\nrefuse to be the prey of verbal mystifications has begun to tell in\npractical 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[124] 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 those\nwho desire most earnestly to be impartial, can wish for nothing more\nurgently than that the scientific theologian should not only be at perfect\nliberty to thresh out the matter in his own fashion; but that he should, if\nhe can, find flaws in the Agnostic position; and, even if demonstration is\nnot to be had, that he should put, in their full force, the grounds of the\nconclusions he thinks probable. The {453} scientific theologian admits the\nAgnostic principle, however widely his results may differ from those\nreached 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 certain\npropositions, whatever the results of a strict scientific investigation of\nthe evidence of these propositions. He tells us \"that religious error is,\nin itself, of an immoral nature.\"[125] He declares that he has prejudged\ncertain conclusions, and looks upon those who show cause for arrest of\njudgment as emissaries of Satan. It necessarily follows that, for him, the\nattainment of faith, not the ascertainment of truth, is the highest aim of\nmental life. And, on careful analysis of the nature of this faith, it will\ntoo often be found to be, not the mystic process of unity with the Divine,\nunderstood by the religious enthusiast--but that which the candid\nsimplicity of a Sunday scholar once defined it to be. \"Faith,\" said this\nunconscious plagiarist of Tertullian, \"is the power of saying you believe\nthings which are incredible.\"\n\nNow I, and many other Agnostics, believe that faith, in this sense, is an\nabomination; 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 and\nthose who hold this {454} doctrine is even more moral than intellectual. It\nis desirable there should be an end of any mistakes on this topic. If our\nclerical opponents were clearly aware of the real state of the case, there\nwould be an end of the curious delusion, which often appears between the\nlines of their writings, that those whom they are so fond of calling\n\"Infidels\" are people who not only ought to be, but in their hearts are,\nashamed of themselves. It would be discourteous to do more than hint the\nantipodal opposition of this pleasant dream of theirs to facts.\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 about\ncertain topics, the bonds of human society will dissolve and mankind lapse\ninto savagery. There are several answers to this assertion. One is that the\nbonds of human society were formed without the aid of their theology; and,\nin the opinion of not a few competent judges, have been weakened rather\nthan strengthened by a good deal of it. Greek science, Greek art, the\nethics of old Israel, the social organisation of old Rome, contrived to\ncome into being without the help of any one who believed in a single\ndistinctive article of the simplest of the Christian creeds. The science,\nthe art, the jurisprudence, the chief political and social theories, of the\nmodern world have grown out of those of Greece and Rome--not by favour of,\nbut in the teeth of, the fundamental teachings of early Christianity, to\nwhich science, art, and any serious occupation with the things of this\nworld, were alike despicable. {455}\n\nAgain, all that is best in the ethics of the modern world, in so far as it\nhas not grown out of Greek thought, or Barbarian manhood, is the direct\ndevelopment of the ethics of old Israel. There is no code of legislation,\nancient or modern, at once so just and so merciful, so tender to the weak\nand poor, as the Jewish law; and, if the Gospels are to be trusted, Jesus\nof Nazareth himself declared that he taught nothing but that which lay\nimplicitly, or explicitly, in the religious and ethical system of his\npeople.\n\n    And the scribe said unto him, Of a truth, Teacher, thou hast well said\n    that He is one; and there is none other but He and to love Him with all\n    the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,\n    and to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt\n    offerings and sacrifices. (Mark xii. 32, 33).\n\nHere is the briefest of summaries of the teaching of the prophets of Israel\nof the eighth century; does the Teacher, whose doctrine is thus set forth\nin his presence, repudiate the exposition? Nay; we are told, on the\ncontrary, that Jesus saw that he \"answered discreetly,\" and replied, \"Thou\nart not far from the Kingdom of God.\"\n\nSo that I think that even if the creeds, from the so-called \"Apostles'\" to\nthe so-called \"Athanasian,\" were swept into oblivion; and even if the human\nrace should arrive at the conclusion that, whether a bishop washes a cup or\nleaves it unwashed, is not a matter of the least consequence, it will get\non very well. The causes which have led to the development of morality in\nmankind, which have guided or {456} impelled us all the way from the savage\nto the civilised state, will not cease to operate because a number of\necclesiastical hypotheses turn out to be baseless. And, even if the absurd\nnotion that morality is more the child of speculation than of practical\nnecessity and inherited instinct, had any foundation; if all the world is\ngoing to thieve, murder, and otherwise misconduct itself as soon as it\ndiscovers that certain portions of ancient history are mythical; what is\nthe relevance of such arguments to any one who holds by the Agnostic\nprinciple?\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 of\nimmorality. For I suppose it is admitted that an Agnostic may be perfectly\nsincere, may be competent, and may have studied the question at issue with\nas much care as his clerical opponents. But, if the Agnostic really\nbelieves what he says, the \"dreadful consequence\" argufier (consistently, I\nadmit, with his own principles) virtually asks him to abstain from telling\nthe truth, or to say what he believes to be untrue, because of the supposed\ninjurious consequences to morality. \"Beloved brethren, that we may be\nspotlessly moral, before all things let us lie,\" is the sum total of many\nan exhortation addressed to the \"Infidel.\" Now, as I have already pointed\nout, we cannot oblige our exhorters. We leave the practical application of\nthe convenient doctrines of \"Reserve\" and \"Non-natural interpretation\" to\nthose who invented them. {457}\n\nI trust that I have now made amends for any ambiguity, or want of fulness,\nin my previous exposition of that which I hold to be the essence of the\nAgnostic doctrine. Henceforward, I might hope to hear no more of the\nassertion that we are necessarily Materialists, Idealists, Atheists,\nTheists, or any other _ists_, if experience had led me to think that the\nproved falsity of a statement was any guarantee against its repetition. And\nthose who appreciate the nature of our position will see, at once, that\nwhen Ecclesiasticism declares that we ought to believe this, that, and the\nother, and are very wicked if we don't, it is impossible for us to give any\nanswer but this: We have not the slightest objection to believe anything\nyou like, if you will give us good grounds for belief; but, if you cannot,\nwe must respectfully refuse, even if that refusal should wreck morality and\ninsure our own damnation several times over. We are quite content to leave\nthat to the decision of the future. The course of the past has impressed us\nwith the firm conviction that no good ever comes of falsehood, and we feel\nwarranted in refusing even to experiment in that direction.\n\n\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, set\nforth by himself. Now this supposed _Summa_ of Nazarene theology distinctly\naffirms the existence of a spiritual world, of a Heaven, and of a {458}\nHell of fire; it teaches the Fatherhood of God and the malignity of the\nDevil; it declares the superintending providence of the former and our need\nof deliverance from the machinations of the latter; it affirms the fact of\ndemoniac possession and the power of casting out devils by the faithful.\nAnd, from these premises, the conclusion is drawn, that those Agnostics who\ndeny that there is any evidence of such a character as to justify\ncertainty, respecting the existence and the nature of the spiritual world,\ncontradict the express declarations of Jesus. I have replied to this\nargumentation by showing that there is strong reason to doubt the\nhistorical accuracy of the attribution to Jesus of either the \"Sermon on\nthe Mount\" or the \"Lord's Prayer\"; and, therefore, that the conclusion in\nquestion is not warranted, at any rate on the grounds set forth.\n\nBut, whether the Gospels contain trustworthy statements about this and\nother alleged historical facts or not, it is quite certain that from them,\ntaken together with the other books of the New Testament, we may collect a\npretty complete exposition of that theory of the spiritual world which was\nheld by both Nazarenes and Christians; and which was undoubtedly supposed\nby them to be fully sanctioned by Jesus, though it is just as clear that\nthey did not imagine it contained any revelation by him of something\nheretofore unknown. If the pneumatological doctrine which pervades the\nwhole New Testament is nowhere systematically stated, it is everywhere\nassumed. The writers of {459} the Gospels and of the Acts take it for\ngranted, as a matter of common knowledge; and it is easy to gather from\nthese sources a series of propositions, which only need arrangement to form\na complete system.\n\nIn this system, Man is considered to be a duality formed of a spiritual\nelement, the soul; and a corporeal[126] element, the body. And this duality\nis repeated in the Universe, which consists of a corporeal world embraced\nand interpenetrated by a spiritual world. The former consists of the earth,\nas its principal and central constituent, with the subsidiary sun, planets,\nand stars. Above the earth is the air, and below it the watery abyss.\nWhether the heaven, which is conceived to be above the air, and the hell\nin, or below, the subterranean deeps, are to be taken as corporeal or\nincorporeal is not clear. However this may be, the heaven and the air, the\nearth and the abyss, are peopled by innumerable beings analogous in nature\nto the spiritual element in man, and these spirits are of two kinds, good\nand bad. The chief of the good spirits, infinitely superior to all the\nothers, and their creator, as well as the creator of the corporeal world\nand of the bad spirits, is God. His residence is heaven, where he is {460}\nsurrounded by the ordered hosts of good spirits; his angels, or messengers,\nand the executors of his will throughout the universe.\n\nOn the other hand, the chief of the bad spirits is Satan, _the_ devil _par\nexcellence_. He and his company of demons are free to roam through all\nparts of the universe, except the heaven. These bad spirits are far\nsuperior to man in power and subtlety, and their whole energies are devoted\nto bringing physical and moral evils upon him, and to thwarting, so far as\ntheir power goes, the benevolent intentions of the Supreme Being. In fact,\nthe souls and bodies of men form both the theatre and the prize of an\nincessant warfare between the good and the evil spirits--the powers of\nlight and the powers of darkness. By leading Eve astray, Satan brought sin\nand death upon mankind. As the gods of the heathen, the demons are the\nfounders and maintainers of idolatry; as the \"powers of the air\" they\nafflict mankind with pestilence and famine; as \"unclean spirits\" they cause\ndisease of mind and body.\n\nThe significance of the appearance of Jesus, in the capacity of the Messiah\nor Christ, is the reversal of the satanic work by putting an end to both\nsin and death. He announces that the kingdom of God is at hand, when the\n\"Prince of this world\" shall be finally \"cast out\" (John xii. 31) from the\ncosmos, as Jesus, during his earthly career, cast him out from individuals.\nThen will Satan and all his devilry, along with the wicked whom they have\nseduced to their destruction, be hurled into the abyss of {461}\nunquenchable fire--there to endure continual torture, without a hope of\nwinning pardon from the merciful God, their Father; or of moving the\nglorified Messiah to one more act of pitiful intercession; or even of\ninterrupting, by a momentary sympathy with their wretchedness, the\nharmonious psalmody of their brother angels and men, eternally lapped in\nbliss unspeakable.\n\nThe straitest Protestant, who refuses to admit the existence of any source\nof Divine truth, except the Bible, will not deny that every point of the\npneumatological theory here set forth has ample scriptural warranty. The\nGospels, the Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse assert the existence of\nthe devil, of his demons and of Hell, as plainly as they do that of God and\nhis angels and Heaven. It is plain that the Messianic and the Satanic\nconceptions of the writers of these books are the obverse and the reverse\nof the same intellectual coinage. If we turn from Scripture to the\ntraditions of the Fathers and the confessions of the Churches, it will\nappear that, in this one particular, at any rate, time has brought about no\nimportant deviation from primitive belief. From Justin onwards, it may\noften be a fair question whether God, or the devil, occupies a larger share\nof the attention of the Fathers. It is the devil who instigates the Roman\nauthorities to persecute; the gods and goddesses of paganism are devils,\nand idolatry itself is an invention of Satan; if a saint falls away from\ngrace, it is by the seduction of the demon; if heresy arises, the devil has\nsuggested it; {462} and some of the Fathers[127] go so far as to challenge\nthe pagans to a sort of exorcising match, by way of testing the truth of\nChristianity. Mediaeval Christianity is at one with patristic on this head.\nThe masses, the clergy, the theologians, and the philosophers alike, live\nand move and have their being in a world full of demons, in which sorcery\nand possession are everyday occurrences. Nor did the Reformation make any\ndifference. Whatever else Luther assailed, he left the traditional\ndemonology untouched; nor could any one have entertained a more hearty and\nuncompromising belief in the devil, than he and, at a later period, the\nCalvinistic fanatics of New England did. Finally, in these last years of\nthe nineteenth century, the demonological hypotheses of the first century\nare, explicitly or implicitly, held and occasionally acted upon by the\nimmense majority of Christians of all confessions.\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 judicious\nsilence about it; or by flight to those refuges for the logically\ndestitute, accommodation or allegory. But the faithful who fly to allegory\nin order to escape absurdity resemble nothing so {463} much as the sheep in\nthe fable who--to save their lives--jumped into the pit. The allegory pit\nis too commodious, is ready to swallow up so much more than one wants to\nput into it. If the story of the temptation is an allegory; if the early\nrecognition of Jesus as the Son of God by the demons is an allegory; if the\nplain declaration of the writer of the first Epistle of John (iii. 8), \"To\nthis end was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works of\nthe devil,\" is allegorical, then the Pauline version of the Fall may be\nallegorical, and still more the words of consecration of the Eucharist, or\nthe promise of the second coming; in fact, there is not a dogma of\necclesiastical Christianity the scriptural basis of which may not be\nwhittled away by a similar process.\n\nAs to accommodation, let any honest man who can read the New Testament ask\nhimself 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?[128]\n\nAn eminent theologian has justly observed that we have no right to look at\nthe propositions of the Christian faith with one eye open and the other\nshut. (Tract 85, p. 29.) It really is not permissible to see, with one eye,\nthat Jesus is affirmed to declare the personality and the Fatherhood of\nGod, His loving providence and His accessibility to prayer; and to {464}\nshut the other to the no less definite teaching ascribed to Jesus in regard\nto the personality and the misanthropy of the devil, his malignant\nwatchfulness, and his subjection to exorcistic formulae and rites. Jesus is\nmade to say that the devil \"was a murderer from the beginning\" (John viii.\n44) by the same authority as that upon which we depend for his asserted\ndeclaration that \"God is a spirit\" (John iv. 24).\n\nTo those who admit the authority of the famous Vincentian dictum that the\ndoctrine which has been held \"always, everywhere, and by all\" is to be\nreceived as authoritative, the demonology must possess a higher sanction\nthan any other Christian dogma, except, perhaps, those of the Resurrection\nand of the Messiahship of Jesus; for it would be difficult to name any\nother points of doctrine on which the Nazarene does not differ from the\nChristian, and the different historical stages and contemporary\nsubdivisions of Christianity from one another. And, if the demonology is\naccepted, there can be no reason for rejecting all those miracles in which\ndemons play a part. The Gadarene story fits into the general scheme of\nChristianity; and the evidence for \"Legion\" and their doings is just as\ngood as any other in the New Testament for the doctrine which the story\nillustrates.\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 Ecclesiasticism;\nthat I devoted so much space to that miraculous story which happens to be\none of the best types of its class. And {465} I could not wish for a better\njustification of the course I have adopted, than the fact that my\nheroically consistent adversary has declared his implicit belief in the\nGadarene story and (by necessary consequence) in the Christian demonology\nas a whole. It must be obvious, by this time, that, if the account of the\nspiritual world given in the New Testament, professedly on the authority of\nJesus, is true, then the demonological half of that account must be just as\ntrue as the other half. And, therefore, those who question the demonology,\nor try to explain it away, deny the truth of what Jesus said, and are, in\necclesiastical terminology, \"Infidels\" just as much as those who deny the\nspirituality of God. This is as plain as anything can well be, and the\ndilemma for my opponent was either to assert that the Gadarene\npig-bedevilment actually occurred, or to write himself down an \"Infidel.\"\nAs was to be expected, he chose the former alternative; and I may express\nmy great satisfaction at finding that there is one spot of common ground on\nwhich both he and I stand. So far as I can judge, we are agreed to state\none of the broad issues between the consequences of agnostic principles (as\nI draw them), and the consequences of ecclesiastical dogmatism (as he\naccepts it), as follows.\n\nEcclesiasticism says: The demonology of the Gospels is an essential part of\nthat account of that spiritual world, the truth of which it declares to be\ncertified by Jesus.\n\nAgnosticism (_me judice_) says: There is no good {466} evidence of the\nexistence of a demonic spiritual world, and much reason for doubting it.\n\nHereupon the ecclesiastic may observe: Your doubt means that you disbelieve\nJesus; therefore you are an \"Infidel\" instead of an \"Agnostic.\" To which\nthe agnostic may reply: No; for two reasons: first, because your evidence\nthat Jesus said what you say he said is worth very little; and secondly,\nbecause a man may be an agnostic, in the sense of admitting he has no\npositive knowledge, and yet consider that he has more or less probable\nground for accepting any given hypothesis about the spiritual world. Just\nas a man may frankly declare that he has no means of knowing whether the\nplanets generally are inhabited or not, and yet may think one of the two\npossible hypotheses more likely than the other, so he may admit that he has\nno means of knowing anything about the spiritual world, and yet may think\none or other of the current views on the subject, to some extent, probable.\n\nThe second answer is so obviously valid that it needs no discussion. I draw\nattention to it simply in justice to those agnostics who may attach greater\nvalue than I do to any sort of pneumatological speculations, and not\nbecause I wish to escape the responsibility of declaring that, whether\nJesus sanctioned the demonological part of Christianity or not, I\nunhesitatingly reject it. The first answer, on the other hand, opens up the\nwhole question of the claim of the biblical and other sources, from which\nhypotheses concerning the spiritual world are derived, to be {467} regarded\nas 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 the\nauthorship and of the dates of these works is a matter of fundamental\nimportance. That assumption is based upon the notion that what contemporary\nwitnesses say must be true, or, at least, has always a _prima facie_ claim\nto be so regarded; so that if the writers of any of the Gospels were\ncontemporaries of the events (and still more if they were in the position\nof eye-witnesses) the miracles they narrate must be historically true, and,\nconsequently, the demonology which they involve must be accepted. But the\nstory of the _Translation of the blessed martyrs Marcellinus and Petrus_,\nand the other considerations (to which endless additions might have been\nmade from the Fathers and the mediaeval writers) set forth in a preceding\nessay, yield, in my judgment, satisfactory proof that, where the miraculous\nis concerned, neither considerable intellectual ability, nor undoubted\nhonesty, nor knowledge of the world, nor proved faithfulness as civil\nhistorians, nor profound piety, on the part of eye-witnesses and\ncontemporaries, affords any guarantee of the objective truth of their\nstatements, when we know that a firm belief in the miraculous was ingrained\nin their minds, and was the pre-supposition of their observations and\nreasonings.\n\nTherefore, although it be, as I believe, demonstrable that we have no real\nknowledge of the {468} authorship, or of the date of composition of the\nGospels, as they have come down to us, and that nothing better than more or\nless probable guesses can be arrived at on that subject, I have not cared\nto expend any space on the question. It will be admitted, I suppose, that\nthe authors of the works attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,\nwhoever they may be, are personages whose capacity and judgment in the\nnarration of ordinary events are not quite so well certified as those of\nEginhard; and we have seen what the value of Eginhard's evidence is when\nthe miraculous is in question.\n\n\n\nI have been careful to explain that the arguments which I have used in the\ncourse of this discussion are not new; that they are historical and have\nnothing to do with what is commonly called science; and that they are all,\nto the best of my belief, to be found in the works of theologians of\nrepute.\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 discovery.\nIts strength was, wittingly or unwittingly, suggested, a century and a half\nago, by a theological scholar of eminence; and it has been, if not exactly\noccupied, yet so fortified with bastions and redoubts by a living\necclesiastical Vauban, that, in my judgment, it has been rendered\nimpregnable. In the early part of {469} the last century, the\necclesiastical mind in this country was much exercised by the question, not\nexactly 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 seventeen\ncenturies earlier. And it was a vital question for them to determine at\nwhat point of time, between this _terminus a quo_ and that _terminus ad\nquem_, 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 the\nsoundness 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 on\nthe sands of early Church history. If, as the Romanists maintained, an\nunbroken series of genuine miracles adorned the records of their Church,\nthroughout the whole of its existence, no Anglican could lightly venture to\naccuse them of doctrinal corruption. Hence, the Anglicans, who indulged in\nsuch accusations, were bound to prove the modern, the mediaeval Roman, and\nthe later Patristic, miracles false; and to shut off the wonder-working\npower from the Church at the exact point of time when Anglican doctrine\nceased and Roman doctrine {470} began. With a little adjustment--a squeeze\nhere and a pull there--the Christianity of the first three or four\ncenturies might be made to fit, or seem to fit, pretty well into the\nAnglican scheme. So the miracles, from Justin say to Jerome, might be\nrecognised; while, in later times, the Church having become \"corrupt\"--that\nis to say, having pursued one and the same line of development further than\nwas pleasing to Anglicans--its alleged miracles must needs be shams and\nimpostures.\n\nUnder these circumstances, it may be imagined that the establishment of a\nscientific 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 pens;\nuntil that learned and acute Anglican divine, Conyers Middleton, in his\n_Free Inquiry_, tore the sophistical web they had laboriously woven to\npieces, and demonstrated that the miracles of the patristric age, early and\nlate, must stand or fall together, inasmuch as the evidence for the later\nis just as good as the evidence for the earlier wonders. If the one set are\ncertified by contemporaneous witnesses of high repute, so are the other;\nand, in point of probability, there is not a pin to choose between the two.\nThat is the solid and irrefragable result of Middleton's contribution to\nthe subject. But the Free Inquirer's freedom had its limits; and he draws a\nsharp line of demarcation between the patristic and the New Testament\nmiracles--on the professed ground that the accounts of the {471} latter,\nbeing inspired, are out of the reach of criticism.\n\nA century later, the question was taken up by another divine, Middleton's\nequal in learning and acuteness, and far his superior in subtlety and\ndialectic skill; who, though an Anglican, scorned the name of Protestant;\nand, while yet a Churchman, made it his business to parade, with infinite\nskill, the utter hollowness of the arguments of those of his brother\nChurchmen who dreamed that they could be both Anglicans and Protestants.\nThe argument of the _Essay on the Miracles recorded in the Ecclesiastical\nHistory of the Early Ages_,[129] by the present Roman Cardinal, but then\nAnglican Doctor, John Henry Newman, is compendiously stated by himself in\nthe following passage:--\n\n    If the miracles of Church history cannot be defended by the arguments\n    of Leslie, Lyttleton, Paley, or Douglas, how many of the Scripture\n    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 men\nof affairs, call evidence. But there is something really impressive {472}\nin the magnificent contempt with which, at times, Dr. Newman sweeps aside\nalike those who offer and those who demand such evidence.\n\n    Some infidel authors advise us to accept no miracles which would not\n    have a verdict in their favour in a court of justice; that is, they\n    employ against Scripture a weapon which Protestants would confine to\n    attacks upon the Church; as if moral and religious questions required\n    legal proof, and evidence were the test of truth[130] (p. cvii).\n\n\"As if evidence were the test of truth\"!--although the truth in question is\nthe occurrence, or the non-occurrence of certain phenomena at a certain\ntime and in a certain place. This sudden revelation of the great gulf fixed\nbetween the ecclesiastical and the scientific mind is enough to take away\nthe breath of any one unfamiliar with the clerical organon. As if, one may\nretort, the assumption that miracles may, or have, served a moral or a\nreligious end, in any way alters the fact that they profess to be\nhistorical events, things that actually happened; and, as such, must needs\nbe exactly those subjects about which evidence is appropriate and legal\nproofs (which are such merely because they afford adequate evidence) may be\njustly demanded. The Gadarene miracle either happened, or it did not.\nWhether the Gadarene \"question\" is moral or religious, or not, has nothing\nto do with the fact that it is a purely {473} historical question whether\nthe demons said what they are declared to have said, and the\ndevil-possessed pigs did, or did not, rush over the cliffs bounding the\nLake of Gennesaret on a certain day of a certain year, after A.D. 26 and\nbefore A.D. 36: for vague and uncertain as New Testament chronology is, I\nsuppose it may be assumed that the event in question, if it happened at\nall, took place during the procuratorship of Pilate. If that is not a\nmatter about which evidence ought to be required, and not only legal, but\nstrict scientific proof demanded by sane men who are asked to believe the\nstory--what is? Is a reasonable being to be seriously asked to credit\nstatements, which, to put the case gently, are not exactly probable, and on\nthe acceptance or rejection of which his whole view of life may depend,\nwithout asking for as much \"legal\" proof as would send an alleged\npickpocket to gaol, or as would suffice to prove the validity of a disputed\nwill?\n\n\"Infidel authors\" (if, as I am assured, I may answer for them) will decline\nto waste time on mere darkenings of counsel of this sort; but to those\nAnglicans who accept his premises, Dr. Newman is a truly formidable\nantagonist. What, indeed, are they to reply when he puts the very pertinent\nquestion:--\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 Almighty\n    could not do in the Christian Church what He had not already done at\n    the time of its foundation, or under the Mosaic Covenant--whether such\n    reasoners are not siding with the sceptic,\n\n{474}\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[131] (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 be drawn in point of character and\n    circumstance between the miracles of Scripture and of Church history;\n    but this is by no means the case (p. lv) ... specimens are not wanting\n    in the history of the Church, of miracles as awful in their character\n    and as momentous in their effects as those which are recorded in\n    Scripture. The fire interrupting the rebuilding of the Jewish temple,\n    and the death of Arius, are instances, in Ecclesiastical history, of\n    such solemn events. On the other hand, difficult instances in the\n    Scripture history are such as these: the serpent in Eden, the Ark,\n    Jacob's vision for the multiplication of his cattle, the speaking of\n    Balaam's ass, the axe swimming at Elisha's word, the miracle on the\n    swine, and various instances of prayers or prophecies, in which, as in\n    that of Noah's blessing and curse, words which seem the result of\n    private feeling are expressly or virtually ascribed to a Divine\n    suggestion (p. lvi).\n\nWho is to gainsay our ecclesiastical authority {475} here? \"Infidel\nauthors\" might be accused of a wish to ridicule the Scripture miracles by\nputting them on a level with the remarkable story about the fire which\nstopped the rebuilding of the Temple, or that about the death of Arius--but\nDr. Newman 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 of\nwhich the chief argument of the defenders of an iniquitous portion of our\npresent marriage law depends? Why leave out the account of the \"Bene\nElohim\" and their gallantries, on which a large part of the worst practices\nof the mediaeval inquisitors into witchcraft was based? Why forget the angel\nwho wrestled with Jacob, and, as the account suggests, somewhat overstepped\nthe bounds of fair play, at the end of the struggle? Surely, we must agree\nwith Dr. Newman that, if all these camels have gone down, it savours of\naffectation to strain at such gnats as the sudden ailment of Arius in the\nmidst of his deadly, if, prayerful,[132] enemies; and the fiery explosion\nwhich {476} stopped the Julian building operations. Though the _words_ of\nthe \"Conclusion\" of the _Essay on Miracles_ may, perhaps, be quoted against\nme, I may express my satisfaction at finding myself in substantial\naccordance with a theologian above all suspicion of heterodoxy. With all my\nheart, I can declare my belief that there is just as good reason for\nbelieving in the miraculous slaying of the man who fell short of the\nAthanasian power of affirming contradictories, with respect to the nature\nof the Godhead, as there is for believing in the stories of the serpent and\nthe ark told in Genesis, the speaking of Balaam's ass in Numbers, or the\nfloating of the axe, at Elisha's order, in the second book of Kings.\n\n\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 impossible\nto refuse to follow Dr. Newman when he extends his reasoning from the\nmiracles of the patristic and mediaeval ages backward in time as far as\nmiracles are recorded. But, if the rules of logic are valid, I feel\ncompelled to extend the argument forward to the alleged Roman miracles of\nthe present day, which Dr. Newman might not have admitted, but which\nCardinal Newman may hardly reject. Beyond question, there is as good, or\nperhaps better, evidence for the miracles worked by our Lady of Lourdes, as\nthere is for the floating of Elisha's axe, {477} or the speaking of\nBalaam's ass. But we must go still further; there is a modern system of\nthaumaturgy and demonology which is just as well certified as the\nancient.[133] Veracious, excellent, sometimes learned and acute persons,\neven philosophers of no mean pretensions, testify to the \"levitation\" of\nbodies much heavier than Elisha's axe; to the existence of \"spirits\" who,\nto the mere tactile sense, have been indistinguishable from flesh and\nblood, and, occasionally, have wrestled with all the vigour of Jacob's\nopponent; yet, further, to the speech, in the language of raps, of\nspiritual beings, whose discourses, in point of coherence and value, are\nfar inferior to that of Balaam's humble but sagacious steed. I have not the\nsmallest doubt that, if these were persecuting times, there is many {478} a\nworthy \"spiritualist\" who would cheerfully go to the stake in support of\nhis pneumatological faith, and furnish evidence, after Paley's own heart,\nin proof of the truth of his doctrines. Not a few modern divines, doubtless\nstruck by the impossibility 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 themselves\nready to take poor Sludge seriously, and to believe that he is possessed by\nother 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 school\nof \"spiritualists\" present a wonderful family likeness to those which adorn\nthe subtle disquisitions of the advocate of ecclesiastical miracles of\nforty years ago. It is unfortunate for the \"spiritualists\" that, over and\nover again, celebrated and trusted media, who really, in some respects,\ncall to mind the Montanist[134] and gnostic seers of the second century,\nare either proved in courts of law to be fraudulent impostors; {479} or, in\nsheer weariness, as it would seem, of the honest dupes who swear by them,\nspontaneously confess their long-continued iniquities, as the Fox women did\nthe other day in New York.[135] But, whenever a catastrophe of this kind\ntakes place, the believers are no wise dismayed by it. They freely admit\nthat not only the media, but the spirits whom they summon, are sadly apt to\nlose sight of the elementary principles of right and wrong; and they\ntriumphantly ask: How does the occurrence of occasional impostures disprove\nthe genuine manifestations (that is to say, all those which have not yet\nbeen proved to be impostures or delusions)? And, in this, they\nunconsciously plagiarise from the churchman, who just as freely admits that\nmany ecclesiastical miracles may have been forged; and asks, with calm\ncontempt, not only of legal proofs, but of common-sense probability, Why\ndoes it follow that none are to be supposed genuine? I must say, however,\nthat the spiritualists, so far as I know, do not venture to outrage right\nreason so boldly as the ecclesiastics. They do not sneer at \"evidence\"; nor\nrepudiate the requirement of legal proofs. In fact, there can be no doubt\nthat the spiritualists produce better evidence for their manifestations\nthan can be shown either for the miraculous death of Arius, or for the\nInvention of the Cross.[136]\n\n{480}\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, there\nis a complete continuity of the miraculous, with every gradation from the\nchildish to the stupendous, from the gratification of a caprice to the\nillustration of sublime truth. There is no drawing a line in the series\nthat 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 be\nfalse.\n\n\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 success,\nby one of the acutest and subtlest disputants who have ever championed\nEcclesiasticism--and one cannot put his claims to acuteness and subtlety\nhigher.\n\n    ... the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there\n    were a safe truth it is this.... \"To be deep in history is to cease to\n    be a Protestant.\"[137]\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 history\nis to cease to be a Romanist. The reasons which compel my doubts about the\ncompatibility of the Roman doctrine, or any other form {481} of\nCatholicism, with history, arise out of exactly the same line of argument\nas that adopted by Dr. Newman in the famous essay which I have just cited.\nIf, with one hand, Dr. Newman has destroyed Protestantism, he has\nannihilated 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 the inevitable result of his\narguments--if the world should refuse to accept Roman doctrines and Roman\nmiracles--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 views\npreceded, and many followed him. But many remained; and, as the quondam\nPuseyite and present Ritualistic party, they are continuing that work of\nsapping and mining the Protestantism of the Anglican Church which he and\nhis friends so ably commenced. At the present time, they have no little\nclaim to be considered victorious all along the line. I am old enough to\nrecollect the small beginnings of the Tractarian party; and I am amazed\nwhen I consider the present position of their heirs. Their little leaven\nhas leavened, if not the whole, yet a very large lump of the Anglican\nChurch; which is now pretty much of a preparatory school for Papistry. So\nthat it really behoves Englishmen (who, as I have been informed by high\nauthority, are all, legally, members of the State Church, if they profess\nto belong to no other sect) to wake up to what that {482} powerful\norganisation is about, and whither it is tending. On this point, the\nwritings of Dr. Newman, while he still remained within the Anglican fold,\nare a vast store of the best and the most authoritative information. His\ndoctrines on Ecclesiastical miracles and on Development are the\ncorner-stones of the Tractarian fabric. He believed that his arguments led\neither Romeward, or to what ecclesiastics call \"Infidelity,\" and I call\nAgnosticism. I believe that he was quite right in this conviction; but\nwhile he chooses the one alternative, I choose the other; as he rejects\nProtestantism on the ground of its incompatibility with history, so, _a\nfortiori_, I conceive that Romanism ought to be rejected, and that an\nimpartial consideration of the evidence must refuse the authority of Jesus\nto anything more than the Nazarenism of James and Peter and John. And let\nit not be supposed that this is a mere \"infidel\" perversion of the facts.\nNo one has more openly and clearly admitted the possibility that they may\nbe fairly interpreted in this way than Dr. Newman. If, he says, there are\ntexts which seem to show that Jesus contemplated the evangelisation of the\nheathen:\n\n    ... Did not the Apostles hear our Lord? and what was _their_ impression\n    from what they heard? Is it not certain that the Apostles did not\n    gather this truth from His teaching? (Tract 85, p. 63).\n\n    He said, \"Preach the Gospel to every creature.\" These words _need_ have\n    only meant \"Bring all men to Christianity through Judaism.\" Make them\n    Jews, that they may enjoy Christ's privileges, which are lodged in\n    Judaism; teach them those rites and ceremonies, circumcision and the\n    like, which {483} hitherto have been dead ordinances, and now are\n    living: and so the Apostles seem to have understood them (_ibid._ p.\n    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 Jesus\nas the Messiah, and by various accretions which had grown round Judaism\nsubsequently to the exile. To these belong the doctrines of the\nResurrection, of the Last Judgment, of Heaven and Hell; of the hierarchy of\ngood angels; of Satan and the hierarchy of evil spirits. And there is very\nstrong ground for believing that all these doctrines, at least in the\nshapes in which they were held by the post-exilic Jews, were derived from\nPersian and Babylonian[138] sources, and are essentially of heathen origin.\n\nHow far Jesus positively sanctioned all these indrainings of circumjacent\nPaganism into Judaism; how far any one has a right to declare, that the\nrefusal to accept one or other of these doctrines, as ascertained verities,\ncomes to the same thing as contradicting Jesus, it appears to me not easy\nto say. But it is hardly less difficult to conceive that he could have\ndistinctly negatived any of them; and, more especially, that demonology\nwhich has been accepted by {484} the Christian Churches in every age and\nunder all their mutual antagonisms. But, I repeat my conviction that,\nwhether Jesus sanctioned the demonology of his time and nation or not, it\nis doomed. The future of Christianity, as a dogmatic system and apart from\nthe old Israelitish ethics which it has appropriated and developed, lies in\nthe answer which mankind will eventually give to the question whether they\nare prepared to believe such stories as the Gadarene and the\npneumatological hypotheses which go with it, or not. My belief is they will\ndecline to do anything of the sort, whenever and wherever their minds have\nbeen disciplined by science. And that discipline must, and will, at once\nfollow and lead the footsteps of advancing civilisation.\n\n\n\nThe preceding pages were written before I became acquainted with the\ncontents of the May number of the _Nineteenth Century_, wherein I discover\nmany things which are decidedly not to my advantage. It would appear that\n\"evasion\" is my chief resource, \"incapacity for strict argument\" and\n\"rottenness of ratiocination\" my main mental characteristics, and that it\nis \"barely credible\" that a statement which I profess to make of my own\nknowledge is true. All which things I notice, merely to illustrate the\ngreat truth, forced on me by long experience, that it is only from those\nwho enjoy the blessing of a firm hold of the Christian faith that such\nmanifestations of meekness, patience, and charity are to be expected. {485}\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 has\nbeen stated and restated by my opponent:\n\n    an Agnosticism which knows nothing of the relation of man to God must\n    not only refuse belief to our Lord's most undoubted teaching, but must\n    deny the reality of the spiritual convictions in which He lived.[139]\n\nThat is said to be \"the simple question which is at issue between us,\" and\nthe three testimonies to that teaching and those convictions selected are\nthe Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, and the Story of the Passion.\n\nMy answer, reduced to its briefest form, has been: In the first place, the\nevidence is such that the exact nature of the teachings and the convictions\nof Jesus is extremely uncertain, so that what ecclesiastics are pleased to\ncall a denial of them may be nothing of the kind. And, in the second place,\nif Jesus taught the demonological system involved in the Gadarene story--if\na belief in that system formed a part of the spiritual convictions in which\nhe lived and died--then I, for my part, unhesitatingly refuse belief in\nthat teaching, and deny the reality of those spiritual convictions. And I\ngo further and add, that, exactly in so far as it can be proved that Jesus\nsanctioned the essentially pagan demonological theories current among the\nJews of his age, exactly in so far, for me, will his authority in any\nmatter touching the spiritual world be weakened.\n\n{486}\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, not\nonly the discourse, but the circumstances under which it was delivered,\nvery different. Now, it is one thing to say that there was something real\nat the bottom of the two discourses--which is quite possible; and another\nto affirm that we have any right to say what that something was, or to fix\nupon any particular phrase and declare it to be a genuine utterance. Those\nwho pursue theology as a science, and bring to the study an adequate\nknowledge of the ways of ancient historians, will find no difficulty in\nproviding illustrations of my meaning. I may supply one which has come\nwithin range of my own limited vision.\n\nIn Josephus's _History of the Wars of the Jews_ (chap, xix.), that writer\nreports a speech which he says Herod made at the opening of a war with the\nArabians. It is in the first person, and would naturally be supposed by the\nreader to be intended for a true version of what Herod said. In the\n_Antiquities_, written some seventeen years later, the same writer gives\nanother report, also in the first person, of Herod's speech on the same\noccasion. This second oration is twice as long as the first, and though the\ngeneral tenour of the two speeches is {487} pretty much the same, there is\nhardly any verbal identity, and a good deal of matter is introduced into\nthe one, which is absent from the other. Josephus prides himself on his\naccuracy; people whose fathers might have heard Herod's oration were his\ncontemporaries; and yet his historical sense is so curiously undeveloped\nthat he can, quite innocently, perpetrate an obvious literary fabrication;\nfor one of the two accounts must be incorrect. Now, if I am asked whether I\nbelieve that Herod made some particular statement on this occasion;\nwhether, for example, he uttered the pious aphorism, \"Where God is, there\nis both multitude and courage,\" which is given in the _Antiquities_, but\nnot in the _Wars_, I am compelled to say I do not know. One of the two\nreports must be erroneous, possibly both are: at any rate, I cannot tell\nhow much of either is true. And, if some fervent admirer of the Idumean\nshould build up a theory of Herod's piety upon Josephus's evidence that he\npropounded the aphorism, is it a \"mere evasion\" to say, in reply, that the\nevidence that he did utter it is worthless?\n\nIt appears again that, adopting the tactics of Conachar when brought face\nto face with Hal o' the Wynd, I have been trying to get my simpleminded\nadversary to follow me on a wild-goose chase through the early history of\nChristianity, in the hope of escaping impending defeat on the main issue.\nBut I may be permitted to point out that there is an alternative hypothesis\nwhich equally fits the facts; and that, after all, there {488} may have\nbeen 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 disciples;\nsuppose it to be demonstrable that, as early as the sixth decade of our era\nat least, there were violent divergencies of opinion among the followers of\nJesus; suppose it to be hardly doubtful that the Gospels and the Acts took\ntheir present shapes under the influence of these divergencies; suppose\nthat their authors, and those through whose hands they passed, had notions\nof historical veracity not more eccentric than those which Josephus\noccasionally displays: surely the chances that the Gospels are altogether\ntrustworthy records of the teachings of Jesus become very slender. And\nsince the whole of the case of the other side is based on the supposition\nthat they are accurate records (especially of speeches, about which ancient\nhistorians are so curiously loose), I really do venture to submit that this\npart of my argument bears very seriously on the main issue; and, as\nratiocination, is sound to the core.\n\nAgain, when I passed by the topic of the speeches of Jesus on the Cross, it\nappears 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 Calvary\";\nbut an ecclesiastical \"Infidel\"! Never. It is obviously impossible that, in\nthe belief that \"the greater includes the less,\" {489} I, having declared\nthe Gospel evidence in general, as to the sayings of Jesus, to be of\nquestionable value, thought it needless to select for illustration of my\nviews, those particular instances which were likely to be most offensive to\npersons of another way of thinking. But any supposition that may have been\nentertained that the old familiar tones of the ecclesiastical war-drum will\ntempt me to engage in such needless discussion had better be renounced. I\nshall do nothing of the kind. Let it suffice that I ask my readers to turn\nto the twenty-third chapter of Luke (revised version), verse thirty-four,\nand he will find in the margin\n\n    Some ancient authorities omit: And Jesus said \"Father forgive them, for\n    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 did\nnot know of this utterance, so often quoted as characteristic of Jesus, or\ndid 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 the\noddest charges an anonymous letter-writer could bring. But I am not sure\nthat the plentiful sowing of the pages of the article with which I am\ndealing 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\n{490} the text of my first paper, but to a note which occurs at p. 171. In\nthis I say:\n\n    Dr. Wace tells us: \"It may be asked how far we can rely on the accounts\n    we possess of our Lord's teaching on these subjects.\" And he seems to\n    think the question appropriately answered by the assertion that it\n    \"ought to be regarded as settled by M. Renan's practical surrender of\n    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 age\nand authorship of the Gospels, be it observed, but as to their historical\nvalue) is made, and he has been so good as to do so. Now let us consider\nthe parts of Dr. Wace's citation from Renan which are relevant to the\nissue:--\n\n    The author of this Gospel [Luke] is certainly the same as the author of\n    the Acts of the Apostles. Now the author of the Acts seems to be a\n    companion of St. Paul--a character which accords completely with St.\n    Luke. I know that more than one objection may be opposed to this\n    reasoning; but one thing, at all events, is beyond doubt, namely, that\n    the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is a man who belonged to\n    the second apostolic generation; 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 of\nSt. Paul, and adds that Luke was a companion of St. Paul. Then, somewhat\nneedlessly, M. Renan points out that there is more than one objection to\njumping, from such data as these, to {491} the conclusion that \"Luke\" is\nthe writer of the third Gospel. And, finally, M. Renan is content to reduce\nthat which is \"beyond doubt\" to the fact that the author of the two books\nis a man of the second apostolic generation. Well, it seems to me that I\ncould agree with all that M. Renan considers \"beyond doubt\" here, without\nsurrendering anything, either \"practically\" or theoretically.\n\nDr. Wace (_Nineteenth Century_, March, p. 363) states that he derives the\nabove citation from the preface to the 15th edition of the _Vie de Jesus_.\nMy copy of _Les Evangiles_, dated 1877, contains a list of Renan's _Oeuvres\nCompletes_, at the head of which I find _Vie de Jesus_, 15^e edition. It\nis, therefore, a later work than the edition of the _Vie de Jesus_ which\nDr. Wace quotes. Now _Les Evangiles_, as its name implies, treats fully of\nthe questions respecting the date and authorship of the Gospels; and any\none who desired, not merely to use M. Renan's expressions for controversial\npurposes, but to give a fair account of his views in their full\nsignificance, would, I think, refer to 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 Gospel\nas he has discovered in _The Apostles_. I mention this circumstance because\nI desire to point out that, taking even the strongest of Renan's\nstatements, I am still at a loss to see how it justifies that\nlarge-sounding phrase, \"practical surrender of the adverse case.\" For, on\np. 438 of _Les Evangiles_, Renan speaks of the way in {492} which Luke's\n\"excellent intentions\" have led him to torture history in the Acts; he\ndeclares Luke to be the founder of that \"eternal fiction which is called\necclesiastical history\"; and, on the preceding page, he talks of the \"myth\"\nof the Ascension--with its \"_mise en scene voulue_.\" At p. 435, I find\n\"Luc, ou l'auteur quel qu'il soit du troisieme Evangile\"; at p. 280, the\naccounts of the Passion, the death and the resurrection of Jesus, are said\nto be \"peu historiques\"; at p. 283, \"La valeur historique du troisieme\nEvangile est surement moindre que celles des deux premiers.\" A Pyrrhic sort\nof victory for orthodoxy this \"surrender!\" And, all the while, the\nscientific student of theology knows that the more reason there may be to\nbelieve that Luke was the companion of Paul, the more doubtful becomes his\ncredibility, if he really wrote the Acts. For, in that case, he could not\nfail to have been acquainted with Paul's account of the Jerusalem\nconference, and he must have consciously misrepresented it.\n\nWe may next turn to the essential part of Dr. Wace's citation (_Nineteenth\nCentury_, p. 365) touching the first Gospel:--\n\n    St. Matthew evidently deserves peculiar confidence for the discourses.\n    Here are the \"oracles\"--the very notes taken while the memory of the\n    instruction of Jesus was living and definite.\n\nM. Renan here expresses the very general opinion as to the existence of a\ncollection of \"logia,\" having a different origin from the text in which\nthey are embedded, in Matthew. \"Notes\" are somewhat suggestive of a\nshorthand writer, but the suggestion is {493} unintentional, for M. Renan\nassumes that these \"notes\" were taken, not at the time of the delivery of\nthe \"logia\" but subsequently, while (as he assumes) the memory of them was\nliving and definite; so that, in this very citation, M. Renan leaves open\nthe question of the general historical value of the first Gospel, while it\nis obvious that the accuracy of \"notes\" taken, not at the time of delivery,\nbut from memory, is a matter about which more than one opinion may be\nfairly held. Moreover, Renan expressly calls attention to the difficulty of\ndistinguishing the authentic \"logia\" from later additions of the same kind\n(_Les Evangiles_, p. 201). The fact is, there is no contradiction here to\nthat opinion about the first Gospel which is expressed in _Les Evangiles_\n(p. 175).\n\n    The text of the so-called Matthew supposes the pre-existence of that of\n    Mark, and does little more than complete it. He completes it in two\n    fashions--first, by the insertion of those long discourses which gave\n    their chief value to the Hebrew Gospels; then by adding traditions of a\n    more modern formation, results of successive developments of the\n    legend, and to which the Christian consciousness already attached\n    infinite value.\n\nM. Renan goes on to suggest that besides \"Mark,\" \"pseudo-Matthew\" used an\nAramaic 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 supposition\n    that this eye-witness ... was the Apostle Peter himself, as Papias has\n    it.\n\nLet us consider this citation by the light of _Les Evangiles_:-- {494}\n\n    This work, although composed after the death of Peter, was, in a sense,\n    the work of Peter; it represents the way in which Peter was accustomed\n    to relate the life of Jesus (p. 116).\n\nM. Renan goes on to say that, as an historical document, the Gospel of Mark\nhas a great superiority (p. 116); but Mark has a motive for omitting the\ndiscourses, and he attaches a \"puerile importance\" to miracles (p. 117).\nThe Gospel of Mark is less a legend than a biography written with credulity\n(p. 118). It would be rash to say that Mark has not been interpolated and\nretouched (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\"; or\nthat my warning against the too ready acceptance of certain declarations as\nto the state of biblical criticism was needless; or that my anxiety as to\nthe sense of the word \"practical\" was superfluous; let him compare the\nstatement that M. Renan has made a \"practical surrender of the adverse\ncase\" with the facts just set forth. For what is the adverse case? The\nquestion, as Dr. Wace puts it, is, \"It may be asked how far can we rely on\nthe accounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these subjects.\" It will\nbe obvious that M. Renan's statements amount to an adverse answer--to a\n\"practical\" denial that any great reliance can be placed on these accounts.\nHe does not believe that Matthew, the apostle, wrote the first Gospel; he\ndoes not profess to know who is responsible for the collection of \"logia,\"\nor how many of them are authentic; though he calls the second Gospel the\n{495} most historical, he points out that it is written with credulity, and\nmay have been interpolated and retouched; and, as to the author, \"quel\nqu'il soit,\" of the third Gospel, who is to \"rely on the accounts\" of a\nwriter who deserves the cavalier treatment which \"Luke\" meets with at M.\nRenan's hands?\n\nI repeat what I have already more than once said, that the question of the\nage and the authorship of the Gospels has not, in my judgment, the\nimportance which is so commonly assigned to it; for the simple reason that\nthe reports, even of eye-witnesses, would not suffice to justify belief in\na large and essential part of their contents; on the contrary, these\nreports would discredit the witnesses. The Gadarene miracle, for example,\nis so extremely improbable, that the fact of its being reported by three,\neven independent, authorities could not justify belief in it unless we had\nthe clearest evidence as to their capacity as observers and as interpreters\nof their observations. But it is evident that the three authorities are not\nindependent; that they have simply adopted a legend, of which there were\ntwo versions; and instead of their proving its truth, it suggests their\nsuperstitious credulity: so that if \"Matthew,\" \"Mark,\" and \"Luke\" are\nreally responsible for the Gospels, it is not the better for the Gadarene\nstory, 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 no\nconsequence {496} to my argument, that if Renan's work[140] were\nnon-extant, the main results of biblical criticism, as set forth in the\nworks of Strauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, would not be\nsensibly affected. I thought I had explained it satisfactorily already, but\nit seems 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, what\nis universally observed is this: that the men who make epochs, and are the\nreal architects of the fabric of exact knowledge, are those who introduce\nfruitful ideas or methods. As a rule, the man who does this pushes his\nidea, or his method, too far; or, if he does not, his school is sure to do\nso, and those who follow have to reduce his work to its proper value, and\nassign it its place in the whole. Not unfrequently they, in their turn,\noverdo the critical process, and, in trying to eliminate error, throw away\ntruth.\n\nThus, as I said, Linnaeus, Buffon, Cuvier, Lamarck, really \"set forth the\nresults\" of a developing science, although they often heartily contradict\none another. Notwithstanding this circumstance, modern classificatory\nmethod and nomenclature have largely grown out of the work of Linnaeus; the\nmodern conception of biology, as a science, and of its relation to\nclimatology, geography, and geology, are as largely rooted in the results\nof the labours of Buffon; comparative {497} anatomy and palaeontology owe a\nvast debt to Cuvier's results; while invertebrate zoology and the revival\nof the idea of evolution are intimately dependent on the results of the\nwork of Lamarck. In other words, the main results of biology up to the\nearly years of this century are to be found in, or spring out of, the works\nof these men.\n\nSo, if I mistake not, Strauss, if he did not originate the idea of taking\nthe mythopoeic faculty into account in the development of the Gospel\nnarratives, and though he may have exaggerated the influence of that\nfaculty, obliged scientific theology hereafter to take that element into\nserious consideration; so Baur, in giving prominence to the cardinal fact\nof the divergence of the Nazarene and Pauline tendencies in the primitive\nChurch; so Reuss, in setting a marvellous example of the cool and\ndispassionate application of the principles of scientific criticism over\nthe whole field of Scripture; so Volkmar, in his clear and forcible\nstatement of the Nazarene limitations of Jesus, contributed results of\npermanent value in scientific theology. I took these names as they occurred\nto me. Undoubtedly, I might have advantageously added to them; perhaps I\nmight have made a better selection. But it really is absurd to try to make\nout that I did not know that these writers widely disagree; and I believe\nthat no scientific theologian will deny that, in principle, what I have\nsaid is perfectly correct. Ecclesiastical advocates, of course, cannot be\nexpected to take this view of the matter. To them, these mere seekers after\ntruth, in so far as {498} their results are unfavourable to the creed the\nclerics have to support, are more or less \"infidels,\" or favourers of\n\"infidelity\"; and the only thing they care to see, or probably can see, is\nthe fact that, in a great many matters, the truth-seekers differ from one\nanother, and therefore can easily be exhibited to the public, as if they\ndid nothing else; 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 based\non the fact that he himself often disagrees with what they say. I have\nnever lent a shadow of foundation to the assumption that I am a follower of\neither Strauss, or Baur, or Reuss, or Volkmar, or Renan; my debt to these\neminent men--so far my superiors in theological knowledge--is, indeed,\ngreat; yet it is not for their opinions, but for those I have been able to\nform for myself, by their help.\n\nIn _Agnosticism: a Rejoinder_ (p. 410), I have referred to the difficulties\nunder which those professors of the science of theology, whose tenure of\ntheir posts depends on the results of their investigations, must labour;\nand, in 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 efforts of\n    persons thus hampered to attain and expound the truth, I think men of\n    common sense would go elsewhere to learn astronomy.\n\nI did not write this paragraph without a {499} knowledge that its sense\nwould be 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 is\nextremely inexpedient that any subject which calls itself a science should\nbe entrusted to teachers who are debarred from freely following out\nscientific 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 of\ntheology. I have very little doubt that if, in the year 1859, the tenure of\nmy office had depended upon my adherence to the doctrines of Cuvier, the\nobjections to those set forth in the _Origin of Species_ would have had a\nhalo of gravity about them that, being free to teach what I pleased, I\nfailed to discover. And, in making that statement, it does not appear to me\nthat I am confessing that I should have been debarred by \"selfish\ninterests\" from making candid inquiry, or that I should have been biassed\nby \"sordid motives.\" I hope that even such a fragment of moral sense as may\nremain in an ecclesiastical \"infidel\" might have got me through the\ndifficulty; but it would be unworthy to deny or disguise the fact that a\nvery serious difficulty must have been created for me by the nature of my\ntenure. And let it be observed that {500} the temptation, in my case, would\nhave been far slighter than in that of a professor of theology; whatever\nbiological doctrine I had repudiated, nobody I cared for would have thought\nthe worse of me for so doing. No scientific journals would have howled me\ndown, as the religious newspapers howled down my too honest friend, the\nlate Bishop of Natal; nor would my colleagues of the Royal Society have\nturned their backs upon me, as his episcopal colleagues boycotted him.\n\nI say these facts are obvious, and that it is wholesome and needful that\nthey should be stated. It is in the interests of theology, if it be a\nscience, 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 no\nmore 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 get\non better if the fetters were knocked off; unless indeed, as it is said\ndoes happen in the course of long captivities, that the victim at length\nceases to feel the weight of his chains, or even takes to hugging them, as\nif they were honourable ornaments.[141]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{501}\n\nXIII\n\nTHE LIGHTS OF THE CHURCH AND THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE\n\nThere are three ways of regarding any account of past occurrences, whether\ndelivered to us orally or recorded in writing.\n\nThe narrative may be exactly true. That is to say, the words, taken in\ntheir natural sense, and interpreted according to the rules of grammar, may\nconvey to the mind of the hearer, or of the reader, an idea precisely\ncorrespondent with one which would have remained in the mind of a witness.\nFor example, the statement that King Charles the First was beheaded at\nWhitehall on the 30th day of January 1649, is as exactly true as any\nproposition in mathematics or physics; no one doubts that any person of\nsound faculties, properly placed, who was present at Whitehall throughout\nthat day, and who used his eyes, would have seen the King's head cut off;\nand that there would have remained in his mind an idea of that occurrence\nwhich he would have put into words of the same value as those which we use\nto express it. {502}\n\nOr the narrative may be partly true and partly false. Thus, some histories\nof the time tell us what the King said, and what Bishop Juxon said; or\nreport royalist conspiracies to effect a rescue; or detail the motives\nwhich induced the chiefs of the Commonwealth to resolve that the King\nshould die. One account declares that the King knelt at a high block,\nanother that he lay down with his neck on a mere plank. And there are\ncontemporary pictorial representations of both these modes of procedure.\nSuch narratives, while veracious as to the main event, may and do exhibit\nvarious degrees of unconscious and conscious misrepresentation,\nsuppression, and invention, till they become hardly distinguishable from\npure fictions. Thus, they present a transition to narratives of a third\nclass, in which the fictitious element predominates. Here, again, there are\nall imaginable gradations, from such works as Defoe's quasi-historical\naccount of the Plague year, which probably gives a truer conception of that\ndreadful time than any authentic history, through the historical novel,\ndrama, and epic, to the purely phantasmal creations of imaginative genius,\nsuch as the old _Arabian Nights_, or the modern _Shaving of Shagpat_. It is\nnot strictly needful for my present purpose that I should say anything\nabout narratives which are professedly fictitious. Yet it may be well,\nperhaps, if I disclaim any intention of derogating from their value, when I\ninsist upon the paramount necessity of recollecting that there is no sort\nof relation between the ethical, or the aesthetic, or even {503} the\nscientific importance of such works, and their worth as historical\ndocuments. Unquestionably, to the poetic artist, or even to the student of\npsychology, _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_ may be better instructors than all the\nbooks of a wilderness of professors of aesthetics or of moral philosophy.\nBut, as evidence of occurrences in Denmark, or in Scotland, at the times\nand places indicated, they are out of court; the profoundest admiration for\nthem, the deepest gratitude for their influence, are consistent with the\nknowledge that, historically speaking, they are worthless fables, in which\nany foundation of reality that may exist is submerged beneath the\nimaginative superstructure.\n\nAt present, however, I am not concerned to dwell upon the importance of\nfictitious literature and the immensity of the work which it has effected\nin the education of the human race. I propose to deal with the much more\nlimited inquiry: Are there two other classes of consecutive narratives (as\ndistinct from statements of individual facts), or only one? Is there any\nknown historical work which is throughout exactly true, or is there not? In\nthe case of the great majority of histories the answer is not doubtful:\nthey are all only partially true. Even those venerable works which bear the\nnames of some of the greatest of ancient Greek and Roman writers, and which\nhave been accepted by generation after generation, down to modern times, as\nstores of unquestionable truth, have been compelled by scientific\ncriticism, after a long battle, to descend to the common level, and to\nconfess to a large admixture of error. I might {504} fairly take this for\ngranted; but it may be well that I should entrench myself behind the very\napposite words of a historical authority who is certainly not obnoxious to\neven a suspicion of sceptical tendencies.\n\n    Time was--and that not very long ago--when all the relations of ancient\n    authors concerning the old world were received with a ready belief; and\n    an unreasoning and uncritical faith accepted with equal satisfaction\n    the narrative of the campaigns of Caesar and of the doings of Romulus,\n    the account of Alexander's marches and of the conquests of Semiramis.\n    We can most of us remember when, in this country, the whole story of\n    regal Rome, and even the legend of the Trojan settlement in Latium,\n    were seriously placed before boys as history, and discoursed of as\n    unhesitatingly and in as dogmatic a tone as the tale of the Catiline\n    Conspiracy or the Conquest of Britain....\n\n    But all this is now changed. The last century has seen the birth and\n    growth of a new science--the Science of Historical Criticism.... The\n    whole world of profane history has been revolutionised....[142]\n\nIf these utterances were true when they fell from the lips of a Bampton\nlecturer in 1859, with how much greater force do they appeal to us now,\nwhen the immense labours of the generation now passing away constitute one\nvast illustration of the power and fruitfulness of scientific methods of\ninvestigation in history, no less than in all other departments of\nknowledge.\n\nAt the present time, I suppose, there is no one who doubts that histories\nwhich appertain to any {505} other people than the Jews, and their\nspiritual progeny in the first century, fall within the second class of the\nthree enumerated. Like Goethe's Autobiography, they might all be entitled\n\"Wahrheit und Dichtung\"--\"Truth and Fiction.\" The proportion of the two\nconstituents changes indefinitely; and the quality of the fiction varies\nthrough the whole gamut of unveracity. But \"Dichtung\" is always there. For\nthe most acute and learned of historians cannot remedy the imperfections of\nhis sources of information; nor can the most impartial wholly escape the\ninfluence of the \"personal equation\" generated by his temperament and by\nhis education. Therefore, from the narratives of Herodotus to those set\nforth in yesterday's _Times_, all history is to be read subject to the\nwarning that fiction has its share therein. The modern vast development of\nfugitive literature cannot be the unmitigated evil that some do vainly say\nit is, since it has put an end to the popular delusion of less press-ridden\ntimes, that what appears in print must be true. We should rather hope that\nsome beneficent influence may create among the erudite a like healthy\nsuspicion of manuscripts and inscriptions, however ancient; for a bulletin\nmay lie, even though it be written in cuneiform characters. Hotspur's\nstarling, that was to be taught to speak nothing but \"Mortimer\" into the\nears of King Henry the Fourth, might be a useful inmate of every\nhistorian's library, if \"Fiction\" were substituted for the name of Harry\nPercy's friend. {506}\n\nBut it was the chief object of the lecturer to the congregation gathered in\nSt. Mary's, Oxford, thirty-one years ago, to prove to them, by evidence\ngathered with no little labour and marshalled with much skill, that one\ngroup of historical works was exempt from the general rule; and that the\nnarratives contained in the canonical Scriptures are free from any\nadmixture of error. With justice and candour, the lecturer impresses upon\nhis hearers that the special distinction of Christianity, among the\nreligions of the world, lies in its claim to be historical; to be surely\nfounded upon events which have happened, exactly as they are declared to\nhave happened in its sacred books; which are true, that is, in the sense\nthat the statement about the execution of Charles the First is true.\nFurther, it is affirmed that the New Testament presupposes the historical\nexactness of the Old Testament; that the points of contact of \"sacred\" and\n\"profane\" history are innumerable; and that the demonstration of the\nfalsity of the Hebrew records, especially in regard to those narratives\nwhich are assumed to be true in the New Testament, would be fatal to\nChristian theology.\n\nMy utmost ingenuity does not enable me to discover a flaw in the argument\nthus briefly summarised. I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one,\nfor a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the\nhistorical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of\nthe Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the\nidentification {507} of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the\ninterpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no\nevidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to\nthem. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and\nsacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the \"ten words\" were not written\nby God's hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical\nhero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall\na legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these\ndefinite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more\nvalue as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome--what is\nto be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly\nenunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the\nNew Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy\nfictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian\ndogma upon legendary quicksands?\n\nBut these may be said to be merely the carpings of that carnal reason which\nthe profane call common sense; I hasten, therefore, to bring up the forces\nof unimpeachable ecclesiastical authority in support of my position. In a\nsermon preached last December, in St. Paul's Cathedral,[143] Canon Liddon\ndeclares:--\n\n{508}\n\n    For Christians it will be enough to know that our Lord Jesus Christ set\n    the seal of His infallible sanction on the whole of the Old Testament.\n    He found the Hebrew Canon as we have it in our hands to-day, and he\n    treated it as an authority which was above discussion. Nay more: He\n    went out of His way--if we may reverently speak thus--to sanction not a\n    few portions of it which modern scepticism rejects. When he would warn\n    His hearers against the dangers of spiritual relapse, He bids them\n    remember \"Lot's wife.\"[144] When He would point out how worldly\n    engagements may blind the soul to a coming judgment, He reminds them\n    how men ate, and drank, and married, and were given in marriage, until\n    the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the Flood came and\n    destroyed them all.[145] If He would put His finger on a fact in past\n    Jewish history which, by its admitted reality, would warrant belief in\n    His own coming Resurrection, He points to Jonah's being three days and\n    three nights in the whale's belly (p. 23).[146]\n\nThe preacher proceeds to brush aside the common--I had almost said\nvulgar--apologetic pretext that Jesus was using _ad hominem_ arguments, or\n\"accommodating\" his better knowledge to popular ignorance, as well as to\npoint out the inadmissibility of the other alternative, that he shared the\npopular ignorance. And to those who hold the latter view sarcasm is dealt\nout with no niggard hand.\n\n    But they will find it difficult to persuade mankind that, if He could\n    be mistaken on a matter of such strictly religious importance as the\n    value of the sacred literature of His countrymen, He can be safely\n    trusted about anything else. The trustworthiness of the Old Testament\n    is, in fact, inseparable from the trustworthiness of our Lord Jesus\n    Christ; and if we believe that He is the true Light of the world, we\n    shall close our ears against suggestions impairing the credit of those\n    Jewish Scriptures which have received the stamp of His Divine authority\n    (p. 25).\n\n{509}\n\nMoreover, I learn from the public journals that a brilliant and sharply-cut\nview of orthodoxy, of like hue and pattern, was only the other day\nexhibited in that great theological kaleidoscope, the pulpit of St. Mary's,\nrecalling the time so long past by, when a Bampton lecturer, in the same\nplace, performed the unusual feat of leaving the faith of old-fashioned\nChristians undisturbed.\n\nYet many things have happened in the intervening thirty-one years. The\nBampton lecturer of 1859 had to grapple only with the infant Hercules of\nhistorical criticism; and he is now a full-grown athlete, bearing on his\nshoulders the spoils of all the lions that have stood in his path. Surely a\nmartyr's courage, as well as a martyr's faith, is needed by any one who, at\nthis time, is prepared to stand by the following plea for the veracity of\nthe Pentateuch:--\n\n    Adam, according to the Hebrew original, was for 243 years contemporary\n    with Methuselah, who conversed for a hundred years with Shem. Shem was\n    for fifty years contemporary with Jacob, who probably saw Jochebed,\n    Moses's mother. Thus, Moses might by oral tradition have obtained the\n    history of Abraham, and even of the Deluge, at third hand; and that of\n    the Temptation and the Fall at fifth hand....\n\n    If it be granted--as it seems to be--that the great and stirring events\n    in a nation's life will, under ordinary circumstances, be remembered\n    (apart from all written memorials) for the space of 150 years, being\n    handed down through five generations, it must be allowed (even on mere\n    human grounds) that the account which Moses gives of the Temptation and\n    the Fall is to be depended upon, if it passed through no more than four\n    hands between him and Adam.[147]\n\n{510}\n\nIf \"the trustworthiness of our Lord Jesus Christ\" is to stand or fall with\nthe belief in the sudden transmutation of the chemical components of a\nwoman's body into sodium chloride, or on the \"admitted reality\" of Jonah's\nejection, safe and sound, on the shores of the Levant, after three day's\nsea-journey in the stomach of a gigantic marine animal, what possible\npretext can there be for even hinting a doubt as to the precise truth of\nthe longevity attributed to the Patriarchs? Who that has swallowed the\ncamel of Jonah's journey will be guilty of the affectation of straining at\nsuch a historical gnat--nay midge--as the supposition that the mother of\nMoses was told the story of the Flood by Jacob; who had it straight from\nShem; who was on friendly terms with Methuselah; who knew Adam quite well?\n\nYet, by the strange irony of things, the illustrious brother of the divine\nwho propounded this remarkable theory, has been the guide and foremost\nworker of that band of investigators of the records of Assyria and of\nBabylonia, who have opened to our view, not merely a new chapter, but a new\nvolume of primeval history, relating to the very people who have the most\nnumerous points of contact with the life of the ancient Hebrews. Now,\nwhatever imperfections may yet obscure the full value of the Mesopotamian\nrecords, everything that has been clearly ascertained tends to the\nconclusion that the assignment of no more than 4000 years to the period\nbetween the time of the origin of mankind and that of Augustus Caesar, is\nwholly inadmissible. Therefore the Biblical {511} chronology, which Canon\nRawlinson trusted so implicitly in 1859, is relegated by all serious\ncritics to the domain of fable.\n\nBut if scientific method, operating in the region of history, of philology,\nof archaeology, in the course of the last thirty or forty years, has become\nthus formidable to the theological dogmatist, what may not be said about\nscientific method working in the province of physical science? For, if it\nbe true that the Canonical Scriptures have innumerable points of contact\nwith civil history, it is no less true that they have almost as many with\nnatural history; and their accuracy is put to the test as severely by the\nlatter as by the former. The origin of the present state of the heavens and\nthe earth is a problem which lies strictly within the province of physical\nscience; so is that of the origin of man among living things; so is that of\nthe physical changes which the earth has undergone since the origin of man;\nso is that of the origin of the various races and nations of men, with all\ntheir varieties of language and physical conformation. Whether the earth\nmoves round the sun or the contrary; whether the bodily and mental diseases\nof men and animals are caused by evil spirits or not; whether there is such\nan agency as witchcraft or not--all these are purely scientific questions;\nand to all of them the canonical Scriptures profess to give true answers.\nAnd though nothing is more common than the assumption that these books come\ninto conflict only with the speculative part of modern physical science, no\nassumption can have less foundation. {512}\n\nThe antagonism between natural knowledge and the Pentateuch would be as\ngreat if the speculations of our time had never been heard of. It arises\nout of contradiction upon matters of fact. The books of ecclesiastical\nauthority declare that certain events happened in a certain fashion; the\nbooks of scientific authority say they did not. As it seems that this\nunquestionable truth has not yet penetrated among many of those who speak\nand write on these subjects, it may be useful to give a full illustration\nof it. And for that purpose I propose to deal, at some length, with the\nnarrative of the Noachian Deluge given in Genesis.\n\n\n\nThe Bampton lecturer in 1859, and the Canon of St. Paul's in 1890, are in\nfull agreement that this history is true, in the sense in which I have\ndefined historical truth. The former is of opinion that the account\nattributed to Berosus records a tradition--\n\n    not drawn from the Hebrew record, much less the foundation of that\n    record; yet coinciding with it in the most remarkable way. The\n    Babylonian version is tricked out with a few extravagances, as the\n    monstrous size of the vessel and the translation of Xisuthros; but\n    otherwise it is the Hebrew history _down to its minutiae_ (p. 64).\n\nMoreover, correcting Niebuhr, the Bampton lecturer points out that the\nnarrative of Berosus implies the universality of the Flood.\n\n    It is plain that the waters are represented as prevailing above the\n    tops of the loftiest mountains in Armenia--a height which must have\n    been seen to involve the submersion of all the countries with which the\n    Babylonians were acquainted (p. 66).\n\n{513}\n\nI may remark, in passing, that many people think the size of Noah's ark\n\"monstrous,\" considering the probable state of the art of shipbuilding only\n1600 years after the origin of man; while others are so unreasonable as to\ninquire why the translation of Enoch is less an \"extravagance\" than that of\nXisuthros. It is more important, however, to note that the universality of\nthe Deluge is recognised, not merely as a part of the story, but as a\nnecessary consequence of some of its details. The latest exponent of\nAnglican orthodoxy, as we have seen, insists upon the accuracy of the\nPentateuchal history of the Flood in a still more forcible manner. It is\ncited as one of those very narratives to which the authority of the Founder\nof Christianity is pledged, and upon the accuracy of which \"the\ntrustworthiness of our Lord Jesus Christ\" is staked, just as others have\nstaked it upon the truth of the histories of demoniac possession in the\nGospels.\n\nNow, when those who put their trust in scientific methods of ascertaining\nthe truth in the province of natural history find themselves confronted and\nopposed, on their own ground, by ecclesiastical pretensions to better\nknowledge, it is, undoubtedly, most desirable for them to make sure that\ntheir conclusions, whatever they may be, are well founded. And, if they put\naside the unauthorised interference with their business and relegate the\nPentateuchal history to the region of pure fiction, they are bound to\nassure themselves that they do so because the plainest teachings of Nature\n(apart from all doubtful {514} speculations) are irreconcilable with the\nassertions which they reject.\n\nAt the present time, it is difficult to persuade serious scientific\ninquirers to occupy themselves, in any way, with the Noachian Deluge. They\nlook at you with a smile and a shrug, and say they have more important\nmatters to attend to than mere antiquarianism. But it was not so in my\nyouth. At that time, geologists and biologists could hardly follow to the\nend any path of inquiry without finding the way blocked by Noah and his\nark, or by the first chapter of Genesis; and it was a serious matter, in\nthis country at any rate, for a man to be suspected of doubting the literal\ntruth of the Diluvial or any other Pentateuchal history. The fiftieth\nanniversary of the foundation of the Geological Club (in 1824), was, if I\nremember rightly, the last occasion on which the late Sir Charles Lyell\nspoke to even so small a public as the members of that body. Our veteran\nleader lighted up once more; and, referring to the difficulties which beset\nhis early efforts to create a rational science of geology, spoke, with his\nwonted clearness and vigour, of the social ostracism which pursued him\nafter the publication of the _Principles of Geology_, in 1830, on account\nof the obvious tendency of that noble work to discredit the Pentateuchal\naccounts of the Creation and the Deluge. If my younger contemporaries find\nthis hard to believe, I may refer them to a grave book, _On the Doctrine of\nthe Deluge_, published eight years later, and dedicated by its author to\nhis father, the then Archbishop of York. The first chapter {515} refers to\nthe treatment of the \"Mosaic Deluge,\" by Dr. Buckland and Mr. Lyell, in the\nfollowing terms:\n\n    Their respect for revealed religion has prevented them from arraying\n    themselves openly against the Scriptural account of it--much less do\n    they deny its truth--but they are in a great hurry to escape from the\n    consideration of it, and evidently concur in the opinion of Linnaeus,\n    that no proofs whatever of the Deluge are to be discovered in the\n    structure of the earth (p. 1).\n\nAnd after an attempt to reply to some of Lyell's arguments, which it would\nbe cruel to reproduce, the writer continues:--\n\n    When, therefore, upon such slender grounds, it is determined, in answer\n    to those who insist upon its universality, that the Mosaic Deluge must\n    be considered a preternatural event, far beyond the reach of\n    philosophical inquiry; not only as to the causes employed to produce\n    it, but as to the effects most likely to result from it; that\n    determination wears an aspect of scepticism, which, however much soever\n    it may be unintentional in the mind of the writer, yet cannot but\n    produce an evil impression on those who are already predisposed to carp\n    and cavil at the evidences of Revelation (pp. 8-9).\n\nThe kindly and courteous writer of these curious passages is evidently\nunwilling to make the geologists the victims of general opprobrium by\npressing the obvious consequences of their teaching home. One is therefore\npained to think of the feelings with which, if he lived so long as to\nbecome acquainted with the _Dictionary of the Bible_, he must have perused\nthe article \"Noah,\" written by a dignitary of the Church for that standard\ncompendium and published in 1863. For the doctrine of the universality of\nthe Deluge is therein altogether given up; and I {516} permit myself to\nhope that a long criticism of the story from the point of view of natural\nscience, with which, at the request of the learned theologian who wrote it,\nI supplied him, may, in some degree, have contributed towards this happy\nresult.\n\nNotwithstanding diligent search, I have been unable to discover that the\nuniversality of the Deluge has any defender left, at least among those who\nhave so far mastered the rudiments of natural knowledge as to be able to\nappreciate the weight of evidence against it. For example, when I turned to\nthe _Speaker's Bible_, published under the sanction of high Anglican\nauthority, I found the following judicial and judicious deliverance, the\nskilful wording of which may adorn, but does not hide, the completeness of\nthe surrender of the old teaching:--\n\n    Without pronouncing too hastily on any fair inferences from the words\n    of Scripture, we may reasonably say that their most natural\n    interpretation is, that the whole race of man had become grievously\n    corrupted since the faithful had intermingled with the ungodly; that\n    the inhabited world was consequently filled with violence, and that God\n    had decreed to destroy all mankind except one single family; that,\n    therefore, all that portion of the earth, perhaps as yet a very small\n    portion, into which mankind had spread was overwhelmed with water. The\n    ark was ordained to save one faithful family; and lest that family, on\n    the subsidence of the waters, should find the whole country round them\n    a desert, a pair of all the beasts of the land, and of the fowls of the\n    air were preserved along with them, and along with them went forth to\n    replenish the now desolated continent. The words of Scripture\n    (confirmed as they are by universal tradition) appear at least to mean\n    as much as this. They do not necessarily mean more.[148]\n\n{517}\n\nIn the third edition of Kitto's _Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature_ (1876),\nthe article \"Deluge,\" written by my friend, the present distinguished head\nof the Geological Survey of Great Britain, extinguishes the universality\ndoctrine as thoroughly as might be expected from its authorship; and, since\nthe writer of the article \"Noah\" refers his readers to that entitled\n\"Deluge,\" it is to be supposed, notwithstanding his generally orthodox\ntone, that he does not dissent from its conclusions. Again, the writers in\nHerzog's _Real-Encyclopaedie_ (Bd. X. 1882) and in Riehm's _Handwoerterbuch_\n(1884)--both works with a conservative leaning--are on the same side; and\nDiestel,[149] in his full discussion of the subject, remorselessly rejects\nthe universality doctrine. Even that staunch opponent of scientific\nrationalism--may I say rationality--Zoeckler,[150] flinches from a distinct\ndefence of the thesis, any opposition to which, well within my\nrecollection, was howled down by the orthodox as mere \"infidelity.\" All\nthat, in his sore straits, Dr. Zoeckler is able to do, is to pronounce a\nfaint commendation upon a particularly absurd attempt at reconciliation,\nwhich would make out the Noachian Deluge to be a catastrophe which occurred\nat the end of the Glacial Epoch. This hypothesis involves only the trifle\nof a physical revolution of which geology knows nothing; and which, if it\nsecured the accuracy of the Pentateuchal writer about the fact of the\nDeluge, would leave the details of his {518} account as irreconcilable with\nthe truths of elementary physical science as ever. Thus I may be permitted\nto spare myself and my readers the weariness of a recapitulation of the\noverwhelming arguments against the universality of the Deluge, which they\nwill now find for themselves stated, as fully and forcibly as could be\nwished, by Anglican and other theologians, whose orthodoxy and conservative\ntendencies have, hitherto, been above suspicion. Yet many fully admit (and,\nindeed, nothing can be plainer) that the Pentateuchal narrator means to\nconvey that, as a matter of fact, the whole earth known to him was\ninundated; nor is it less obvious that, unless all mankind, with the\nexception of Noah and his family, were actually destroyed, the references\nto the Flood in the New Testament are unintelligible.\n\nBut I am quite aware that the strength of the demonstration that no\nuniversal Deluge ever took place has produced a change of front in the army\nof apologetic writers. They have imagined that the substitution of the\nadjective \"partial\" for \"universal,\" will save the credit of the\nPentateuch, and permit them, after all, without too many blushes, to\ndeclare that the progress of modern science only strengthens the authority\nof Moses. Nowhere have I found the case of the advocates of this method of\nescaping from the difficulties of the actual position better put than in\nthe lecture of Professor Diestel to which I have referred. After frankly\nadmitting that the old doctrine of universality involves physical\nimpossibilities, he continues:-- {519}\n\n    All these difficulties fall away as soon as we give up the universality\n    of the Deluge, and imagine a _partial_ flooding of the earth, say in\n    western Asia. But have we a right to do so? The narrative speaks of\n    \"the whole earth.\" But what is the meaning of this expression? Surely\n    not the whole surface of the earth according to the ideas of _modern_\n    geographers, but, at most, according to the conceptions of the Biblical\n    author. This very simple conclusion, however, is never drawn by too\n    many readers of the Bible. But one need only cast one's eyes over the\n    tenth chapter of Genesis in order to become acquainted with the\n    geographical horizon of the Jews. In the north it was bounded by the\n    Black Sea and the mountains of Armenia; extended towards the east very\n    little beyond the Tigris; hardly reached the apex of the Persian Gulf;\n    passed, then, through the middle of Arabia and the Red Sea; went\n    southward through Abyssinia, and then turned westward by the frontiers\n    of Egypt, and inclosed the easternmost islands of the Mediterranean (p.\n    11).\n\nThe justice of this observation must be admitted, no less than the further\nremark that, in still earlier times, the pastoral Hebrews very probably had\nyet more restricted notions of what constituted the \"whole earth.\"\nMoreover, I, for one, fully agree with Professor Diestel that the motive,\nor generative incident, of the whole story is to be sought in the\noccasionally excessive and desolating floods of the Euphrates and the\nTigris.\n\nLet us, provisionally, accept the theory of a partial deluge, and try to\nform a clear mental picture of the occurrence. Let us suppose that, for\nforty days and forty nights, such a vast quantity of water was poured upon\nthe ground that the whole surface of Mesopotamia was covered by water to a\ndepth certainly greater, probably much greater, than fifteen cubits, or\n{520} twenty feet (Gen. vii. 20). The inundation prevails upon the earth\nfor one hundred and fifty days; and then the flood gradually decreases,\nuntil, on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the ark, which had\npreviously floated on its surface, grounds upon the \"mountains of\nArarat\"[151] (Gen. viii. 34). Then, as Diestel has acutely pointed out\n(_Sintflut_, p. 13), we are to imagine the further subsidence of the flood\nto take place so gradually that it was not until nearly two months and\na-half after this time (that is to say, on the first day of the tenth\nmonth) that the \"tops of the mountains\" became visible. Hence it follows\nthat, if the ark drew even as much as twenty feet of water, the level of\nthe inundation fell very slowly--at a rate of only a few inches a\nday--until the top of the mountain on which it rested became visible. This\nis an amount of movement which, if it took place in the sea, would be\noverlooked by ordinary people on the shore. But the Mesopotamian plain\nslopes gently, from an elevation of 500 or 600 feet at its northern end, to\nthe sea, at its southern end, with hardly so much as a notable ridge to\nbreak its uniform flatness, for 300 to 400 miles. These being the\nconditions of the case, the following inquiry naturally presents itself:\nnot, be it observed, as a recondite problem, generated by modern\nspeculation, but as a plain suggestion flowing out of that very ordinary\nand archaic piece of knowledge that water cannot be piled up {521} in a\nheap, like sand; or that it seeks the lowest level. When, after 150 days,\n\"the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and\nthe rain from heaven was restrained\" (Gen. viii. 2), what prevented the\nmass of water, several, possibly very many, fathoms deep, which covered,\nsay, the present site of Bagdad, from sweeping seaward in a furious\ntorrent; and, in a very few hours, leaving, not only the \"tops of the\nmountains,\" but the whole plain, save any minor depressions, bare? How\ncould its subsidence, by any possibility, be an affair of weeks and months?\n\nAnd if this difficulty is not enough, let any one try to imagine how a mass\nof water several, perhaps very many, fathoms deep, could be accumulated on\na flat surface of land rising well above the sea, and separated from it by\nno sort of barrier. Most people know Lord's Cricket-ground. Would it not be\nan absurd contradiction to our common knowledge of the properties of water\nto imagine that, if all the mains of all the waterworks of London were\nturned on to it, they could maintain a heap of water twenty feet deep over\nits level surface? Is it not obvious that the water, whatever momentary\naccumulation might take place at first, would not stop there, but that it\nwould dash, like a mighty mill-race, southwards down the gentle slope which\nends in the Thames? And is it not further obvious, that whatever depth of\nwater might be maintained over the cricket-ground so long as all the mains\npoured on to it, anything which floated there would be speedily whirled\naway by the current, like a cork in a gutter when the rain pours? {522} But\nif this is so, then it is no less certain that Noah's deeply laden,\nsailless, oarless, and rudderless craft, if by good fortune it escaped\ncapsizing in whirlpools, or having its bottom knocked into holes by snags\n(like those which prove fatal even to well-built steamers on the\nMississippi in our day), would have speedily found itself a good way down\nthe Persian Gulf, and not long after in the Indian Ocean, somewhere between\nArabia and Hindostan. Even if, eventually, the ark might have gone ashore,\nwith other jetsam and flotsam, on the coasts of Arabia, or of Hindostan, or\nof the Maldives, or of Madagascar, its return to the \"mountains of Ararat\"\nwould have been a miracle more stupendous than all the rest.\n\nThus, the last state of the would-be reconcilers of the story of the Deluge\nwith fact is worse than the first. All that they have done is to transfer\nthe contradictions to established truth from the region of science proper\nto that of common information and common sense. For, really, the assertion\nthat the surface of a body of deep water, to which no addition was made,\nand which there was nothing to stop from running into the sea, sank at the\nrate of only a few inches or even feet a day, simply outrages the most\nordinary and familiar teachings of every man's daily experience. A child\nmay see the folly of it.\n\nIn addition, I may remark that the necessary assumption of the \"partial\nDeluge\" hypothesis (if it is confined to Mesopotamia) that the Hebrew\nwriter must have meant low hills when he said \"high mountains,\" is quite\nuntenable. On the eastern side of the {523} Mesopotamian plain, the snowy\npeaks of the frontier ranges of Persia are visible from Bagdad,[152] and\neven the most ignorant herdsmen in the neighbourhood of \"Ur of the\nChaldees,\" near its western limit, could hardly have been unacquainted with\nthe comparatively elevated plateau of the Syrian desert which lay close at\nhand. But, surely, we must suppose the Biblical writer to be acquainted\nwith the highlands of Palestine and with the masses of the Sinaitic\npeninsula, which soar more than 8000 feet above the sea, if he knew of no\nhigher elevations; and, if so, he could not well have meant to refer to\nmere hillocks when he said that \"all the high mountains which were under\nthe whole heaven were covered\" (Genesis vii. 19). Even the hill-country of\nGalilee reaches an elevation of 4000 feet; and a flood which covered it\ncould by no possibility have been other than universal in its superficial\nextent. Water really cannot be got to stand at, say, 4000 feet above the\nsea-level over Palestine, without covering the rest of the globe to the\nsame height. Even if, in the course of Noah's six hundredth year, some\nprodigious convulsion had sunk the whole region inclosed within \"the\nhorizon of the geographical knowledge\" of the Israelites by that much, and\nanother had pushed it up again, just in time to catch the ark upon the\n\"mountains of Ararat,\" matters are not much mended. I am afraid to think of\nwhat would have become of a vessel so little seaworthy as the ark and of\nits very numerous passengers, {524} under the peculiar obstacles to quiet\nflotation which such rapid movements of depression and upheaval would have\ngenerated.\n\nThus, in view, not, I repeat, of the recondite speculations of infidel\nphilosophers, but in the face of the plainest and most commonplace of\nascertained physical facts, the story of the Noachian Deluge has no more\nclaim to credit than has that of Deucalion; and whether it was, or was not,\nsuggested by the familiar acquaintance of its originators with the effects\nof unusually great overflows of the Tigris and Euphrates, it is utterly\ndevoid of historical truth.\n\n\n\nThat is, in my judgment, the necessary result of the application of\ncriticism, based upon assured physical knowledge, to the story of the\nDeluge. And it is satisfactory that the criticism which is based, not upon\nliterary and historical speculations, but upon well-ascertained facts in\nthe departments of literature and history, tends to exactly the same\nconclusion.\n\nFor I find this much agreed upon by all Biblical scholars of repute, that\nthe story of the Deluge in Genesis is separable into at least two sets of\nstatements; and that, when the statements thus separated are recombined in\ntheir proper order, each set furnishes an account of the event, coherent\nand complete within itself, but in some respects discordant with that\nafforded by the other set. This fact, as I understand, is not disputed.\nWhether one of these is the work of an Elohist, and the other of a Jehovist\nnarrator; whether the two have been pieced together in this {525} strange\nfashion because, in the estimation of the compilers and editors of the\nPentateuch, they had equal and independent authority, or not; or whether\nthere is some other way of accounting for it--are questions the answers to\nwhich do not affect the fact. If possible I avoid _a priori_ arguments. But\nstill, I think it may be urged, without imprudence, that a narrative having\nthis structure is hardly such as might be expected from a writer possessed\nof full and infallibly accurate knowledge. Once more, it would seem that it\nis not necessarily the mere inclination of the sceptical spirit to question\neverything, or the wilful blindness of infidels, which prompts grave doubts\nas to the value of a narrative thus curiously unlike the ordinary run of\nveracious histories.\n\nBut the voice of archaeological and historical criticism still has to be\nheard; and it gives forth no uncertain sound. The marvellous recovery of\nthe records of an antiquity, far superior to any that can be ascribed to\nthe Pentateuch, which has been effected by the decipherers of cuneiform\ncharacters, has put us in possession of a series, once more, not of\nspeculations, but of facts, which have a most remarkable bearing upon the\nquestion of the trustworthiness of the narrative of the Flood. It is\nestablished, that for centuries before the asserted migration of Terah from\nUr of the Chaldees (which, according to the orthodox interpreters of the\nPentateuch, took place after the year 2000 B.C.) Lower Mesopotamia was the\nseat of a civilisation in which art and science and literature had attained\na development formerly unsuspected, or, {526} if there were faint reports\nof it, treated as fabulous. And it is also no matter of speculation, but a\nfact, that the libraries of these people contain versions of a long epic\npoem, one of the twelve books of which tells a story of a deluge, which, in\na number of its leading features, corresponds with the story attributed to\nBerosus, no less than with the story given in Genesis, with curious\nexactness. Thus, the correctness of Canon Rawlinson's conclusion, cited\nabove, that the story of Berosus was neither drawn from the Hebrew record,\nnor is the foundation of it, can hardly be questioned. It is highly\nprobable, if not certain, that Berosus relied upon one of the versions (for\nthere seem to have been several) of the old Babylonian epos, extant in his\ntime; and, if that is a reasonable conclusion, why is it unreasonable to\nbelieve that the two stories, which the Hebrew compiler has put together in\nsuch an inartistic fashion, were ultimately derived from the same source? I\nsay ultimately, because it does not at all follow that the two versions,\npossibly trimmed by the Jehovistic writer on the one hand, and by the\nElohistic on the other, to suit Hebrew requirements, may not have been\ncurrent among the Israelites for ages. And they may have acquired great\nauthority before they were combined in the Pentateuch.\n\nLooking at the convergence of all these lines of evidence to the one\nconclusion--that the story of the Flood in Genesis is merely a Bowdlerised\nversion of one of the oldest pieces of purely fictitious literature extant;\nthat whether this is, or is not, its origin, the {527} events asserted in\nit to have taken place assuredly never did take place; further, that, in\npoint of fact, the story, in the plain and logically necessary sense of its\nwords, has long since been given up by orthodox and conservative\ncommentators of the Established Church--I can but admire the courage and\nclear foresight of the Anglican divine who tells us that we must be\nprepared to choose between the trustworthiness of scientific method and the\ntrustworthiness of that which the Church declares to be Divine authority.\nFor, to my mind, this declaration of war to the knife against secular\nscience, even in its most elementary form; this rejection without a\nmoment's hesitation of any and all evidence which conflicts with\ntheological dogma--is the only position which is logically reconcilable\nwith the axioms of orthodoxy. If the Gospels truly report that which an\nincarnation of the God of Truth communicated to the world, then it surely\nis absurd to attend to any other evidence touching matters about which he\nmade any clear statement, or the truth of which is distinctly implied by\nhis words. If the exact historical truth of the Gospels is an axiom of\nChristianity, it is as just and right for a Christian to say, Let us \"close\nour ears against suggestions\" of scientific critics, as it is for the man\nof science to refuse to waste his time upon circle-squarers and flat-earth\nfanatics.\n\nIt is commonly reported that the manifesto by which the Canon of St. Paul's\nproclaims that he nails the colours of the straitest Biblical infallibility\nto the mast of the ship ecclesiastical, was put forth as a {528}\ncounterblast to _Lux Mundi_; and that the passages which I have more\nparticularly quoted are directed against the essay on \"The Holy Spirit and\nInspiration\" in that collection of treatises by Anglican divines of high\nstanding, who must assuredly be acquitted of conscious \"infidel\"\nproclivities. I fancy that rumour must, for once, be right, for it is\nimpossible to imagine a more direct and diametrical contradiction than that\nbetween the passages from the sermon cited above and those which follow:--\n\n    What is questioned is that our Lord's words foreclose certain critical\n    positions as to the character of Old Testament literature. For example,\n    does His use of Jonah's resurrection as a _type_ of His own, depend in\n    any real degree upon whether it is historical fact or allegory?... Once\n    more, our Lord uses the time before the Flood, to illustrate the\n    carelessness of men before His own coming.... In referring to the Flood\n    He certainly suggests that He is treating it as typical, for He\n    introduces circumstances--\"eating and drinking, marrying and giving in\n    marriage\"--which have no counterpart in the original narrative (p.\n    358-9).\n\nWhile insisting on the flow of inspiration through the whole of the Old\nTestament, the essayist does not admit its universality. Here, also, the\nnew apologetic demands a partial flood:\n\n    But does the inspiration of the recorder guarantee the exact historical\n    truth of what he records? And, in matter of fact, can the record, with\n    due regard to legitimate historical criticism, be pronounced true? Now,\n    to the latter of these two questions (and they are quite distinct\n    questions) we may reply that there is nothing to prevent our believing,\n    as our faith strongly disposes us to believe, that the record from\n    Abraham downward is, in substance, in the strict sense historical (p.\n    351).\n\nIt would appear, therefore, that there is nothing {529} to prevent our\nbelieving that the record, from Abraham upward, consists of stories in the\nstrict sense unhistorical, and that the pre-Abrahamic narratives are mere\nmoral and religious \"types\" and parables.\n\nI confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately\namong \"types\" and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces me to\nask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe\nthe stories in question, or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as of a matter\nof fact, that \"the Flood came and destroyed them all,\" did he believe that\nthe Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative\nmentions Noah's wife, and his sons' wives, there is good scriptural\nwarranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in\nmarriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be\nassumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story.\nMoreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God's\nmethods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never\nhappened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of\nmore worth than the cry of \"Wolf\" when there is no wolf? If Jonah's three\ndays' residence in the whale is not an \"admitted reality,\" how could it\n\"warrant belief\" in the \"coming resurrection?\" If Lot's wife was not turned\ninto a pillar of salt, the bidding those who turn back from the narrow path\nto \"remember\" it is, morally, about on a level with telling a naughty child\nthat a bogy is {530} coming to fetch it away. Suppose that a Conservative\norator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes,\nlest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what\nbecomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally,\ndoes not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to\nhim?\n\nLike all other attempts to reconcile the results of\nscientifically-conducted investigation with the demands of the outworn\ncreeds of ecclesiasticism, the essay on Inspiration is just such a failure\nas must await mediation, when the mediator is unable properly to appreciate\nthe weight of the evidence for the case of one of the two parties. The\nquestion of \"Inspiration\" really possesses no interest for those who have\ncast ecclesiasticism and all its works aside, and have no faith in any\nsource of truth save that which is reached by the patient application of\nscientific methods. Theories of inspiration are speculations as to the\nmeans by which the authors of statements, in the Bible or elsewhere, have\nbeen led to say what they have said--and it assumes that natural agencies\nare insufficient for the purpose. I prefer to stop short of this problem,\nfinding it more profitable to undertake the inquiry which naturally\nprecedes it--namely, Are these statements true or false? If they are true,\nit may be worth while to go into the question of their supernatural\ngeneration; if they are false, it certainly is not worth mine.\n\nNow, not only do I hold it to be proven that the story of the Deluge is a\npure fiction; but I have no {531} hesitation in affirming the same thing of\nthe story of the Creation.[153] Between these two lies the story of the\ncreation of man and woman and their fall from primitive innocence, which is\neven more monstrously improbable than either of the other two, though, from\nthe nature of the case, it is not so easily capable of direct refutation.\nIt can be demonstrated that the earth took longer than six days in the\nmaking, and that the Deluge, as described, is a physical impossibility; but\nthere is no proving, especially to those who are perfect in the art of\nclosing their ears to that which they do not wish to hear, that a snake did\nnot speak, or that Eve was not made out of one of Adam's ribs.\n\nThe compiler of Genesis, in its present form, evidently had a definite plan\nin his mind. His countrymen, like all other men, were doubtless curious to\nknow how the world began; how men, and especially wicked men, came into\nbeing, and how existing nations and races arose among the descendants of\none stock; and, finally, what was the history of their own particular\ntribe. They, like ourselves, desired to solve the four great problems of\ncosmogeny, anthropogeny, ethnogeny, and geneogeny. The Pentateuch {532}\nfurnishes the solutions which appeared satisfactory to its author. One of\nthese, as we have seen, was borrowed from a Babylonian fable; and I know of\nno reason to suspect any different origin for the rest. Now, I would ask,\nis the story of the fabrication of Eve to be regarded as one of those\npre-Abrahamic narratives, the historical truth of which is an open\nquestion, in face of the reference to it in a speech unhappily famous for\nthe legal oppression to which it has been wrongfully forced to lend itself?\n\n    Have ye not read, that he which made them from the beginning made them\n    male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father\n    and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one\n    flesh? (Matt. xix. 5).\n\nIf divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the\nsecond chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask,\nif one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a \"type\" or\n\"allegory,\" what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?--\n\n    For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the\n    dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive\n    (1 Corinthians xv. 21, 22).\n\nIf Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if\nthe story of the Fall is merely an instructive \"type,\" comparable to the\nprofound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul's dialectic?\n\nWhile, therefore, every right-minded man must sympathise with the efforts\nof those theologians, who {533} have not been able altogether to close\ntheir ears to the still, small voice of reason, to escape from the fetters\nwhich ecclesiasticism has forged, the melancholy fact remains, that the\nposition they have taken up is hopelessly untenable. It is raked alike by\nthe old-fashioned artillery of the Churches and by the fatal weapons of\nprecision with which the _enfants perdus_ of the advancing forces of\nscience are armed. They must surrender, or fall back into a more sheltered\nposition. And it is possible that they may long find safety in such\nretreat.\n\nIt is, indeed, probable that the proportional number of those who will\ndistinctly profess their belief in the transubstantiation of Lot's wife,\nand the anticipatory experience of submarine navigation by Jonah; in water\nstanding fathoms deep on the side of a declivity without anything to hold\nit up; and in devils who enter swine--will not increase. But neither is\nthere ground for much hope that the proportion of those who cast aside\nthese fictions and adopt the consequence of that repudiation, are, for some\ngenerations, likely to constitute a majority. Our age is a day of\ncompromises. The present and the near future seem given over to those\nhappily, if curiously, constituted people who see as little difficulty in\nthrowing aside any amount of post-Abrahamic Scriptural narrative, as the\nauthors of _Lux Mundi_ see in sacrificing the pre-Abrahamic stories; and,\nhaving distilled away every inconvenient matter of fact in Christian\nhistory, continue to pay divine honours to the residue. There really seems\nto be no reason why the next generation {534} should not listen to a\nBampton Lecture modelled upon that addressed to the last:--\n\n    Time was--and that not very long ago--when all the relations of\n    Biblical authors concerning the old world were received with a ready\n    belief; and an unreasoning and uncritical faith accepted with equal\n    satisfaction the narrative of the Captivity and the doings of Moses at\n    the court of Pharaoh, the account of the Apostolic meeting in the\n    Epistle to the Galatians, and that of the fabrication of Eve. We can\n    most of us remember when, in this country, the whole story of the\n    Exodus, and even the legend of Jonah, were seriously placed before boys\n    as history, and discoursed of in as dogmatic a tone as the tale of\n    Agincourt or the history of the Norman Conquest.\n\n    But all this is now changed. The last century has seen the growth of\n    scientific criticism to its full strength. The whole world of history\n    has been revolutionised and the mythology which embarrassed earnest\n    Christians has vanished as an evil mist, the lifting of which has only\n    more fully revealed the lineaments of infallible Truth. No longer in\n    contact with fact of any kind, Faith stands now and for ever proudly\n    inaccessible to the attacks of the infidel.\n\nSo far the apologist of the future. Why not? _Cantabit vacuus._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{535}\n\nXIV\n\nTHE KEEPERS OF THE HERD OF SWINE\n\nI had fondly hoped that Mr. Gladstone and I had come to an end of\ndisputation, and that the hatchet of war was finally superseded by the\ncalumet, which, as Mr. Gladstone, I believe, objects to tobacco, I was\nquite willing to smoke for both. But I have had, once again, to discover\nthat the adage that whoso seeks peace will ensue it, is a somewhat hasty\ngeneralisation. The renowned warrior with whom it is my misfortune to be\nopposed in most things has dug up the axe and is on the war-path once more.\nThe weapon has been wielded with all the dexterity which long practice has\nconferred on a past master in craft, whether of wood or state. And I have\nreason to believe that the simpler sort of the great tribe which he heads\nimagine that my scalp is already on its way to adorn their big chief's\nwigwam. I am glad therefore to be able to relieve any anxieties which my\nfriends may entertain without delay. I assure them that my skull retains\nits normal covering, and that though, naturally, I may have felt alarmed,\nnothing serious has happened. My doughty {536} adversary has merely\nperformed a war dance, and his blows have for the most part cut the air. I\nregret to add, however, that by misadventure, and I am afraid I must say\ncarelessness, he has inflicted one or two severe contusions on himself.\n\nWhen the noise of approaching battle roused me from the dreams of peace\nwhich occupy my retirement, I was glad to observe (since I must fight) that\nthe campaign was to be opened upon a new field. When the contest raged over\nthe Pentateuchal myth of the creation, Mr. Gladstone's manifest want of\nacquaintance with the facts and principles involved in the discussion, no\nless than with the best literature on his own side of the subject, gave me\nthe uncomfortable feeling that I had my adversary at a disadvantage. The\nsun of science, at my back, was in his eyes. But, on the present occasion,\nwe are happily on an equality. History and Biblical criticism are as much,\nor as little, my vocation as they are that of Mr. Gladstone; the blinding\nfrom too much light, or the blindness from too little, may be presumed to\nbe equally shared by both of us.\n\nMr. Gladstone takes up his new position in the country of the Gadarenes.\nHis strategic sense justly leads him to see that the authority of the\nteachings of the synoptic Gospels, touching the nature of the spiritual\nworld, turns upon the acceptance or the rejection of the Gadarene and other\nlike stories. As we accept or repudiate such histories as that of the\npossessed pigs, so shall we {537} accept or reject the witness of the\nsynoptics to such miraculous interventions.\n\nIt is exactly because these stories constitute the key-stone of the\northodox arch, that I originally drew attention to them; and, in spite of\nmy longing for peace, I am truly obliged to Mr. Gladstone for compelling me\nto place my case before the public once more. It may be thought that this\nis a work of supererogation by those who are aware that my essay is the\nsubject of attack in a work so largely circulated as the _Impregnable Rock\nof Holy Scripture_; and who may possibly, in their simplicity, assume that\nit must be truthfully set forth in that work. But the warmest admirers of\nMr. Gladstone will hardly be prepared to maintain that mathematical\naccuracy in stating the opinions of an opponent is the most prominent\nfeature of his controversial method. And what follows will show that, in\nthe present case, the desire to be fair and accurate, the existence of\nwhich I am bound to assume, has not borne as much fruit as might have been\nexpected.\n\nIn referring to the statement of the narrators that the herd of swine\nperished in consequence of the entrance into them of the demons by the\npermission, or order, of Jesus of Nazareth, I said:\n\n\"Everything that I know of law and justice convinces me that the wanton\ndestruction of other people's property is a misdemeanour of evil example\"\n(_Nineteenth Century_, February 1889, p. 172).\n\nMr. Gladstone has not found it convenient to cite this passage; and, in\nview of various considerations, {538} I dare not assume that he would\nassent to it, without sundry subtle modifications which, for me, might\npossibly rob it of its argumentative value. But, until the proposition is\nseriously controverted, I shall assume it to be true, and content myself\nwith warning the reader that neither he nor I have any grounds for assuming\nMr. Gladstone's concurrence. With this caution, I proceed to remark that I\nthink it may be granted that the people whose herd of 2000 swine (more or\nfewer) was suddenly destroyed suffered great loss and damage. And it is\nquite certain that the narrators of the Gadarene story do not, in any way,\nrefer to the point of morality and legality thus raised; as I said, they\nshow no inkling of the moral and legal difficulties which arise.\n\nSuch being the facts of the case, I submit that for those who admit the\nprinciple laid down, the conclusion which I have drawn necessarily follows;\nthough I repeat that, since Mr. Gladstone does not explicitly admit the\nprinciple, I am far from suggesting that he is bound by its logical\nconsequences. However, I distinctly repeat the opinion that any one who\nacted in the way described in the story would, in my judgment, be guilty of\n\"a misdemeanour of evil example.\" About that point I desire to leave no\nambiguity whatever; and it follows that, if I believed the story, I should\nhave no hesitation in applying this judgment to the chief actor in it.\n\nBut if any one will do me the favour to turn to the paper in which these\npassages occur, he will find that a considerable part of it is devoted to\nthe {539} exposure of the familiar trick of the \"counsel for creeds,\" who,\nwhen they wish to profit by the easily stirred _odium theologicum_, are\ncareful to confuse disbelief in a narrative of a man's act, or disapproval\nof the acts as narrated, with disbelieving and vilipending the man himself.\nIf I say that \"according to paragraphs in several newspapers, my valued\nSeparatist friend A. B. has houghed a lot of cattle which he considered to\nbe unlawfully in the possession of an Irish land-grabber; that in my\nopinion any such act is a misdemeanour of evil example; but that I utterly\ndisbelieve the whole story and have no doubt that it is a mere\nfabrication:\" it really appears to me that, if any one charges me with\ncalling A. B. an immoral misdemeanant, I should be justified in using very\nstrong language respecting either his sanity or his veracity. And, if an\nanalogous charge has been brought in reference to the Gadarene story, there\nis certainly no excuse producible on account of any lack of plain speech on\nmy part. Surely no language can be more explicit than that which follows:\n\n\"I 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 inevitable\nthat his authority on matters connected with the 'unseen world' should be\nroughly shaken; in the latter, the blow falls upon the authority of the\nsynoptic Gospels\" (p. 173). \"The choice then lies between discrediting\nthose who compiled the gospel biographies and disbelieving the Master, whom\n{540} they, simple souls, thought to honour by preserving such traditions\nof the exercise of his authority over Satan's invisible world\" (p. 174).\nAnd I leave no shadow of doubt as to my own choice: \"After what has been\nsaid, I do not think that any sensible man, unless he happen to be angry,\nwill accuse me of 'contradicting the Lord and his Apostles' if I reiterate\nmy total disbelief in the whole Gadarene story\" (p. 178).\n\nI am afraid, therefore, that Mr. Gladstone must have been exceedingly angry\nwhen he committed himself to such a statement as follows:\n\n    So, then, after eighteen centuries of worship offered to our Lord by\n    the most cultivated, the most developed, and the most progressive\n    portion of the human race, it has been reserved to a scientific\n    inquirer to discover that He was no better than a law-breaker and an\n    evil-doer.... How, in such a matter, came the honours of originality to\n    be reserved to our time and to Professor Huxley? (pp. 269, 270.)\n\nTruly, the hatchet is hardly a weapon of precision, but would seem to have\nrather more the character of the boomerang, which returns to damage the\nreckless thrower. Doubtless such incidents are somewhat ludicrous. But they\nhave a very serious side; and, if I rated the opinion of those who blindly\nfollow Mr. Gladstone's leading, but not light, in these matters, much\nhigher than the great Duke of Wellington's famous standard of minimum\nvalue, I think I might fairly beg them to reflect upon the general bearings\nof this particular example of his controversial method. I imagine it can\nhardly commend itself to their cool judgment. {541}\n\nAfter this tragi-comical ending to what an old historian calls a\n\"robustious and rough coming on\"; and after some praises of the provisions\nof the Mosaic law in the matter of not eating pork--in which, as pork\ndisagrees with me and for some other reasons, I am much disposed to concur,\nthough I do not see what they have to do with the matter in hand--comes the\nserious onslaught.\n\n    Mr. Huxley, exercising his rapid judgment on the text, does not appear\n    to have encumbered himself with the labour of inquiring what anybody\n    else had known or said about it. He has thus missed a point which might\n    have been set up in support of his accusation against our Lord (p.\n    273).\n\nUnhappily for my comfort, I have been much exercised in controversy during\nthe past thirty years; and the only compensation for the loss of time and\nthe trials of temper which it has inflicted upon me, is that I have come to\nregard it as a branch of the fine arts, and to take an impartial and\naesthetic interest in the way it is conducted, even by those whose efforts\nare directed against myself. Now, from the purely artistic point of view\n(which, as we are all being told, has nothing to do with morals), I\nconsider it an axiom, that one should never appear to doubt that the other\nside has performed the elementary duty of acquiring proper elementary\ninformation, unless there is demonstrative evidence to the contrary. And I\nthink, though I admit that this may be a purely subjective appreciation,\nthat (unless you are quite certain) there is a \"want of finish,\" as a great\n{542} master of disputation once put it, about the suggestion that your\nopponent has missed a point on his own side. Because it may happen that he\nhas not missed it at all, but only thought it unworthy of serious notice.\nAnd if he proves that, the suggestion looks foolish.\n\nMerely noting the careful repetition of a charge, the absurdity of which\nhas been sufficiently exposed above, I now ask my readers to accompany me\non a little voyage of discovery in search of the side on which the rapid\njudgment and the ignorance of the literature of the subject lie. I think I\nmay promise them very little trouble, and a good deal of entertainment.\n\nMr. Gladstone is of opinion that the Gadarene swinefolk were \"Hebrews bound\nby the Mosaic law\" (p. 274), and he conceives that it has not occurred to\nme to learn what may be said in favour of and against this view. He tells\nus that\n\n    Some commentators have alleged the authority of Josephus for stating\n    that Gadara was a city of Greeks rather than of Jews, from whence it\n    might be inferred that to keep swine was innocent and lawful (p. 273).\n\nMr. Gladstone then goes on to inform his readers that in his painstaking\nsearch after truth he has submitted to the labour of personally examining\nthe writings of Josephus. Moreover, in a note, he positively exhibits an\nacquaintance, in addition, with the works of Bishop Wordsworth and of\nArchbishop Trench; and even shows that he has read Hudson's commentary on\nJosephus. And yet people say that {543} our Biblical critics do not equal\nthe Germans in research! But Mr. Gladstone's citation of Cuvier and Sir\nJohn Herschel about the Creation myth, and his ignorance of all the best\nmodern writings on his own side, produced a great impression on my mind. I\nhave had the audacity to suspect that his acquaintance with what has been\ndone in biblical history might stand at no higher level than his\ninformation about the natural sciences. However unwillingly, I have felt\nbound to consider the possibility that Mr. Gladstone's labours in this\nmatter may have carried him no further than Josephus and the worthy, but\nsomewhat antique, episcopal and other authorities to whom he refers; that\neven his reading of Josephus may have been of the most cursory nature,\ndirected not to the understanding of his author, but to the discovery of\nuseful controversial matter; and that, in view of the not inconsiderable\nmisrepresentation of my statements to which I have drawn attention, it\nmight be that Mr. Gladstone's exposition of the evidence of Josephus was\nnot more trustworthy. I proceed to show that my previsions have been fully\njustified. I doubt if controversial literature contains anything more\n_piquant_ than the story I have to unfold.\n\nThat I should be reproved for rapidity of judgment is very just: however\nquaint the situation of Mr. Gladstone, as the reprover, may seem to people\nblessed with a sense of humour. But it is a quality, the defects of which\nhave been painfully obvious to me all my life; and I try to keep my\nPegasus--at {544} best a poor Shetland variety of that species of\nquadruped--at a respectable jog-trot, by loading him heavily with bales of\nreading. Those who took the trouble to study my paper in good faith, and\nnot for mere controversial purposes, have a right to know, that something\nmore than a hasty glimpse of two or three passages of Josephus (even with\nas many episcopal works thrown in) lay at the back of the few paragraphs I\ndevoted to the Gadarene story. I proceed to set forth, as briefly as I can,\nsome results of that preparatory work. My artistic principles do not permit\nme, at present, to express a doubt that Mr. Gladstone was acquainted with\nthe facts I am about to mention when he undertook to write. But, if he did\nknow them, then both what he has said and what he has not said, his\nassertions and his omissions alike, will require a paragraph to themselves.\n\nThe common consent of the synoptic Gospels affirms that the miraculous\ntransference of devils from a man, or men, to sundry pigs took place\nsomewhere on the eastern shore of the Lake of Tiberias; \"on the other side\nof the sea over against Galilee,\" the western shore being, without doubt,\nincluded in the latter province. But there is no such concord when we come\nto the name of the part of the eastern shore on which, according to the\nstory, Jesus and his disciples landed. In the revised version Matthew calls\nit the \"country of the Gadarenes:\" Luke and Mark have \"Gerasenes.\" In\nsundry very ancient manuscripts \"Gergesenes\" occurs. {545}\n\nThe existence of any place called Gergesa, however, is declared by the\nweightiest authorities whom I have consulted to be very questionable; and\nno such town is mentioned in the list of the cities of the Decapolis, in\nthe territory of which (as it would seem from Mark v. 20) the transaction\nwas supposed to take place. About Gerasa, on the other hand, there hangs no\nsuch doubt. It was a large and important member of the group of the\nDecapolitan cities. But Gerasa is more than thirty miles distant from the\nnearest part of the Lake of Tiberias, while the city mentioned in the\nnarrative could not have been very far off the scene of the event. However,\nas Gerasa was a very important Hellenic city, not much more than a score of\nmiles from Gadara, it is easily imaginable that a locality which was part\nof Decapolitan territory may have been spoken of as belonging to one of the\ntwo cities, when it really appertained to the other. After weighing all the\narguments, no doubt remains on my mind that \"Gadarene\" is the proper\nreading. At the period under consideration, Gadara appears to have been a\ngood-sized fortified town, about two miles in circumference. It was a place\nof considerable strategic importance, inasmuch as it lay on a high ridge at\nthe point of intersection of the roads from Tiberias, Scythopolis,\nDamascus, and Gerasa. Three miles north from it, where the Tiberias road\ndescended into the valley of the Hieromices, lay the famous hot springs and\nthe fashionable baths of Amatha. On the north-east side, the remains of the\nextensive necropolis of Gadara are still to be seen. {546} Innumerable\nsepulchral chambers are excavated in the limestone cliffs, and many of them\nstill contain sarcophaguses of basalt; while not a few are converted into\ndwellings by the inhabitants of the present village of Um Keis. The\ndistance of Gadara from the south-eastern shore of the Lake of Tiberias is\nless than seven miles. The nearest of the other cities of the Decapolis, to\nthe north, is Hippos, which also lay some seven miles off on the\nsouth-eastern corner of the shore of the lake. In accordance with the\nancient Hellenic practice that each city should be surrounded by a certain\namount of territory amenable to its jurisdiction,[154] and on the other\ngrounds, it may be taken for certain that the intermediate country was\ndivided between Gadara and Hippos, and that the citizens of Gadara had free\naccess to a port on the lake. Hence the title of \"country of the Gadarenes\"\napplied to the locality of the porcine catastrophe becomes easily\nintelligible. The swine may well be imagined to have been feeding (as they\ndo now in the adjacent region) on the hillsides, which slope somewhat\nsteeply down to the lake from the northern boundary wall of the valley of\nthe Hieromices (_Nahr Yarmuk_), about half-way between the city and the\nshore, and doubtless lay well within the territory of the _polis_ of\nGadara.\n\nThe proof that Gadara was, to all intents and purposes, a Gentile and not a\nJewish city is complete. {547} The date and the occasion of its foundation\nare unknown; but it certainly existed in the third century B.C. Antiochus\nthe Great annexed it to his dominions in B.C. 198. After this, during the\nbrief revival of Jewish autonomy, Alexander Jannaeus took it; and for the\nfirst time, so far as the records go, it fell under Jewish rule.[155] From\nthis it was rescued by Pompey (B.C. 63), who rebuilt the city and\nincorporated it with the province of Syria. In gratitude to the Romans for\nthe dissolution of a hated union, the Gadarenes adopted the Pompeian era on\ntheir coinage. Gadara was a commercial centre of some importance, and\ntherefore, it may be assumed, Jews settled in it, as they settled in almost\nall considerable Gentile cities. But a wholly mistaken estimate of the\nmagnitude of the Jewish colony has been based upon the notion that\nGabinius, proconsul of Syria in 57-55 B.C., seated one of the five\nsanhedrims in Gadara. Schuerer has pointed out that what he really did was\nto lodge one of them in Gazara, far away on the other side of the Jordan.\nThis is one of the many errors which have arisen out of the confusion of\nthe names Ga_d_ara, Ga_z_ara, and Ga_b_ara.\n\nAugustus made a present of Gadara to Herod the Great, as an appanage\npersonal to himself; and, upon Herod's death, recognising it to be a\n\"Grecian city like Hippos and Gaza,\"[156] he transferred it back to its\nformer {548} place in the province of Syria. That Herod made no effort to\njudaise his temporary possession, but rather the contrary, is obvious from\nthe fact that the coins of Gadara, while under his rule, bear the image of\nAugustus with the superscription [Greek: Sebastos]--a flying in the face of\nJewish prejudices which even he did not dare to venture upon in Judaea. And\nI may remark that, if my co-trustee of the British Museum had taken the\ntrouble to visit the splendid numismatic collection under our charge, he\nmight have seen two coins of Gadara, one of the time of Tiberius and the\nother of that of Titus, each bearing the effigies of the emperor on the\nobverse: while the personified genius of the city is on the reverse of the\nformer. Further, the well-known works of De Saulcy and of Ekhel would have\nsupplied the information that, from the time of Augustus to that of\nGordian, the Gadarene coinage had the same thoroughly Gentile character.\nCurious that a city of \"Hebrews bound by the Mosaic law\" should tolerate\nsuch a mint!\n\nWhatever increase in population the Ghetto of Gadara may have undergone\nbetween B.C. 4 and A.D. 66, it nowise affected the Gentile and anti-Judaic\ncharacter of the city at the outbreak of the great war; for Josephus tells\nus that immediately after the great massacre at Caesarea, the revolted Jews\n\"laid waste the villages of the Syrians and their neighbouring cities,\nPhiladelphia and Sebonitis and Gerasa and Pella and Scythopolis, and after\nthem Gadara and Hippos\" (_Wars_, II. xviii. 1). I submit that if Gadara had\nbeen a city of \"Hebrews bound by the {549} Mosaic law,\" the ravaging of\ntheir territory by their brother Jews in revenge for the massacre of the\nCaesarean Jews by the Gentile population of that place, would surely have\nbeen a somewhat unaccountable proceeding. But when we proceed a little\nfurther, to the fifth section of the chapter in which this statement\noccurs, the whole affair becomes intelligible enough.\n\n    Besides this murder at Scythopolis, the other cities rose up against\n    the Jews that were among them: those of Askelon slew two thousand five\n    hundred, and those of Ptolemais two thousand, and put not a few into\n    bonds; those of Tyre also put a great number to death, but kept a\n    greater number in prison; moreover, those of Hippos and those of Gadara\n    did the like, while they put to death the boldest of the Jews, but kept\n    those of whom they were most afraid in custody; as did the rest of the\n    cities of Syria according as they every one either hated them or were\n    afraid of them.\n\nJosephus is not always trustworthy, but he has no conceivable motive for\naltering facts here; he speaks of contemporary events, in which he himself\ntook an active part, and he characterises the cities in the way familiar to\nhim. For Josephus, Gadara is just as much a Gentile city as Ptolemais; it\nwas reserved for his latest commentator, either ignoring, or ignorant of,\nall this, to tell us that Gadara had a Hebrew population bound by the\nMosaic law.\n\nIn the face of all this evidence, most of which has been put before serious\nstudents, with full reference to the needful authorities and in a\nthoroughly judicial manner, by Schuerer in his classical work,[157] one\nreads {550} with stupefaction the statement which Mr. Gladstone has thought\nfit to put before the uninstructed public:\n\n    Some commentators have alleged the authority of Josephus for stating\n    that Gadara was a city of Greeks rather than of Jews, from whence it\n    might be inferred that to keep swine was innocent and lawful. This is\n    not quite the place for a critical examination of the matter; but I\n    have examined it, and have satisfied myself that Josephus gives no\n    reason whatever to suppose that the population of Gadara, and still\n    less (if less may be) the population of the neighbourhood, and least of\n    all the swine-herding or lower portion of that population, were other\n    than Hebrews bound by the Mosaic law. (Pp. 373-4.)\n\nEven \"rapid judgment\" cannot be pleaded in excuse for this surprising\nstatement, because a \"Note on the Gadarene miracle\" is added (in a special\nappendix), in which the references are given to the passages of Josephus,\nby the improved interpretation of which Mr. Gladstone has thus contrived to\nsatisfy himself of the thing which is not. One of these is _Antiquities_,\nXVII. xiii. 4, in which section I regret to say I can find no mention of\nGadara. In _Antiquities_, XVII. xi. 4, however, there is a passage which\nwould appear to be that which Mr. Gladstone means, and I will give it in\nfull, although I have already cited part of it:\n\n    There were also certain of the cities which paid tribute to Archelaus;\n    Strato's tower, and Sebaste, with Joppa and Jerusalem; for, as to Gaza,\n    Gadara, and Hippos, they were Grecian cities, which Caesar separated\n    from his government, and added them to the province of Syria.\n\nThat is to say, Augustus simply restored the state of things which existed\nbefore he gave Gadara, then certainly a Gentile city, lying outside Judaea,\nto {551} Herod as a mark of great personal favour. Yet Mr. Gladstone can\ngravely tell those who are not in a position to check his statements:\n\n    The sense seems to be not that these cities were inhabited by a Greek\n    population, but that they had politically been taken out of Judaea and\n    added to Syria, which I presume was classified as simply Hellenic, a\n    portion of the great Greek empire erected by Alexander. (Pp. 295-6.)\n\nMr. Gladstone's next reference is to the _Wars_, III. vii. 1:\n\n    So Vespasian marched to the city Gadara, and took it upon the first\n    onset, because he found it destitute of a considerable number of men\n    grown up fit for war. He then came into it, and slew all the youth, the\n    Romans having no mercy on any age whatsoever; and this was done out of\n    the hatred they bore the nation, and because of the iniquity they had\n    been guilty of in the affair of Cestius.\n\nObviously, then, Gadara was an ultra-Jewish city. Q.E.D. But a student\ntrained in the use of weapons of precision, rather than in that of\nrhetorical tomahawks, has had many and painful warnings to look well about\nhim before trusting an argument to the mercies of a passage, the context of\nwhich he has not carefully considered. If Mr. Gladstone had not been too\nmuch in a hurry to turn his imaginary prize to account--if he had paused\njust to look at the preceding chapter of Josephus--he would have discovered\nthat his much haste meant very little speed. He would have found (_Wars_,\nIII. vi. 2) that Vespasian marched from his base, the port of Ptolemais\n(Acre), on the shores of the Mediterranean, into Galilee; and, having dealt\nwith the so-called \"Gadara,\" was minded {552} to finish with Jotapata, a\nstrong place about fourteen miles south-east of Ptolemais, into which\nJosephus, who at first had fled to Tiberias, eventually threw\nhimself--Vespasian arriving before Jotapata \"the very next day.\" Now, if\nany one will take a decent map of Ancient Palestine in hand, he will see\nthat Jotapata, as I have said, lies about fourteen miles in a straight line\neast-south-east of Ptolemais, while a certain town, \"Gabara\" (which was\nalso held by the Jews), is situated about the same distance to the east of\nthat port. Nothing can be more obvious than that Vespasian, wishing to\nadvance from Ptolemais into Galilee, could not afford to leave these\nstrongholds in the possession of the enemy; and as Gabara would lie on his\nleft flank when he moved to Jotapata, he took that city, whence his\ncommunications with his base could easily be threatened, first. It might\nreally have been fair evidence of demoniac possession, if the best general\nof Rome had marched forty odd miles, as the crow flies, through hostile\nGalilee, to take a city (which, moreover, had just tried to abolish its\nJewish population) on the other side of the Jordan; and then marched back\nagain to a place fourteen miles off his starting-point.[158] One would\nthink that the most careless of readers must be startled by this\nincongruity into inquiring whether there might not be something wrong with\nthe text; and if he had done so he would {553} have easily discovered that\nsince the time of Reland, a century and a half ago, careful scholars have\nread Ga_b_ara for Ga_d_ara.[159]\n\nOnce more, I venture to point out that training in the use of the weapons\nof precision of science may have its value in historical studies, if only\nin preventing the occurrence of droll blunders in geography.\n\nIn the third citation (_Wars_, IV. vii.) Josephus tells us that Vespasian\nmarched against \"Gadara,\" which he calls the metropolis of Peraea (it was\npossibly the seat of a common festival of the Decapolitan cities), and\nentered it without opposition, the wealthy and powerful citizens having\nopened negotiations with him without the knowledge of an opposite party,\nwho, \"as being inferior in number to their enemies who were within the\ncity, and seeing the Romans very near the city,\" resolved to fly. Before\ndoing so, however, they, after a fashion unfortunately too common among the\nZealots, murdered and shockingly mutilated Dolesus, a man of the first\nrank, who had promoted the embassy to Vespasian, and then \"ran out of the\ncity.\" Hereupon \"the people of Gadara\" (surely not this time \"Hebrews bound\nby the Mosaic law\") received Vespasian with joyful acclamations,\nvoluntarily pulled down their wall, so that the city could not in future be\nused as a fortress by the Jews, and accepted a Roman garrison for their\nfuture protection. Granting that this Gadara really is the city of the\nGadarenes, the reference, without citation, to {554} the passage in support\nof Mr. Gladstone's contention seems rather remarkable. Taken in conjunction\nwith the shortly antecedent ravaging of the Gadarene territory by the Jews,\nin fact, better proof could hardly be expected of the real state of the\ncase; namely, that the population of Gadara (and notably the wealthy and\nrespectable part of it) was thoroughly Hellenic; though, as in Caesarea and\nelsewhere among the Palestinian cities, the rabble contained a considerable\nbody of fanatical Jews, whose reckless ferocity made them, even though a\nmere minority of the population, a standing danger to the city.\n\nThus Mr. Gladstone's conclusion from his study of Josephus, that the\npopulation of Gadara were \"Hebrews bound by the Mosaic law,\" turns out to\ndepend upon nothing better than a marvellously complete misinterpretation\nof what that author says, combined with equally marvellous geographical\nmisunderstandings, long since exposed and rectified; while the positive\nevidence that Gadara, like other cities of the Decapolis, was thoroughly\nHellenic in organisation and essentially Gentile in population is\noverwhelming.\n\nAnd, that being the fact of the matter, patent to all who will take the\ntrouble to inquire about what has been said about it, however obscure to\nthose who merely talk of so doing, the thesis that the Gadarene swineherds,\nor owners, were Jews violating the Mosaic law shows itself to be an empty\nand most unfortunate guess. But really, whether they that kept the swine\nwere Jews, or whether they were Gentiles, is a {555} consideration which\nhas no relevance whatever to my case. The legal provisions which alone had\nauthority over an inhabitant of the country of the Gadarenes were the\nGentile laws sanctioned by the Roman suzerain of the province of Syria,\njust as the only law which has authority in England is that recognised by\nthe sovereign Legislature. Jewish communities in England may have their\nprivate code, as they doubtless had in Gadara. But an English magistrate,\nif called upon to enforce their peculiar laws, would dismiss the\ncomplainants from the judgment seat, let us hope with more politeness than\nGallio did in a like case, but quite as firmly. Moreover, in the matter of\nkeeping pigs, we may be quite certain that Gadarene law left everybody free\nto do as he pleased, indeed encouraged the practice rather than otherwise.\nNot only was pork one of the commonest and one of the most favourite\narticles of Roman diet; but, to both Greeks and Romans, the pig was a\nsacrificial animal of high importance. Sucking pigs played an important\npart in Hellenic purificatory rites; and everybody knows the significance\nof the Roman suovetaurilia, depicted on so many bas-reliefs.\n\nUnder these circumstances, only the extreme need of a despairing\n\"reconciler\" drowning in a sea of adverse facts, can explain the catching\nat such a poor straw as the reckless guess that the swineherds of the\n\"country of the Gadarenes\" were erring Jews, doing a little clandestine\nbusiness on their own account. The endeavour to justify the asserted\ndestruction of the swine by the analogy of breaking open a cask of {556}\nsmuggled spirits, and wasting their contents on the ground, is curiously\nunfortunate. Does Mr. Gladstone mean to suggest that a Frenchman landing at\nDover, and coming upon a cask of smuggled brandy in the course of a stroll\nalong the cliffs, has the right to break it open and waste its contents on\nthe ground? Yet the party of Galileans who, according to the narrative,\nlanded and took a walk on the Gadarene territory, were as much foreigners\nin the Decapolis as Frenchmen would be at Dover. Herod Antipas, their\nsovereign, had no jurisdiction in the Decapolis--they were strangers and\naliens, with no more right to interfere with a pig-keeping Hebrew than I\nhave a right to interfere with an English professor of the Israelitic\nfaith, if I see a slice of ham on his plate. According to the law of the\ncountry in which these Galilean foreigners found themselves, men might keep\npigs if they pleased. If the men who kept them were Jews, it might be\npermissible for the strangers to inform the religious authority\nacknowledged by the Jews of Gadara, but to interfere themselves in such a\nmatter was a step devoid of either moral or legal justification.\n\nSuppose a modern English Sabbatarian fanatic, who believes, on the strength\nof his interpretation of the fourth commandment, that it is a deadly sin to\nwork on the \"Lord's Day,\" sees a fellow Puritan yielding to the temptation\nof getting in his harvest on a fine Sunday morning--is the former justified\nin setting fire to the latter's corn? Would not an English court of justice\nspeedily teach him better? {557}\n\nIn truth, the government which permits private persons, on any pretext\n(especially pious and patriotic pretexts), to take the law into their own\nhands, fails in the performance of the primary duties of all governments;\nwhile those who set the example of such acts, or who approve them, or who\nfail to disapprove them, are doing their best to dissolve civil\nsociety--they are compassers of illegality and fautors of immorality.\n\nI fully understand that Mr. Gladstone may not see the matter in this light.\nHe may possibly consider that the union of Gadara with the Decapolis by\nAugustus was a \"blackguard\" transaction, which deprived Hellenic Gadarene\nlaw of all moral force; and that it was quite proper for a Jewish Galilean,\ngoing back to the time when the land of the Girgashites was given to his\nancestors, some 1500 years before, to act as if the state of things which\nought to obtain in territory which traditionally, at any rate, belonged to\nhis forefathers, did really exist. And, that being so, I can only say I do\nnot agree with him, but leave the matter to the appreciation of those of\nour countrymen, happily not yet the minority, who believe that the first\ncondition of enduring liberty is obedience to the law of the land.\n\n\n\nThe end of the month drawing nigh, I thought it well to send away the\nmanuscript of the foregoing pages yesterday, leaving open, in my own mind,\nthe possibility of adding a succinct characterisation of Mr. Gladstone's\ncontroversial methods as illustrated {558} therein. This morning, however,\nI had the pleasure of reading a speech which I think must satisfy the\nrequirements of the most fastidious of controversial artists; and there\noccurs in it so concise, yet so complete, a delineation of Mr. Gladstone's\nway of dealing with disputed questions of another kind, that no poor effort\nof mine could better it as a description of the aspect which his treatment\nof scientific, historical, and critical questions presents to me.\n\n    The smallest examination would have told a man of his capacity and of\n    his experience that he was uttering the grossest exaggerations, that he\n    was basing arguments upon the slightest hypotheses, and that his\n    discussions only had to be critically examined by the most careless\n    critic in order to show their intrinsic hollowness.\n\nThose who have followed me through this paper will hardly dispute the\njustice of this judgment, severe as it is. But the Chief Secretary for\nIreland has science in the blood; and has the advantage of a natural, as\nwell as a highly cultivated, aptitude for the use of methods of precision\nin investigation, and for the exact enunciation of the results thereby\nobtained.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{559}\n\nXV\n\nILLUSTRATIONS OF MR. GLADSTONE'S CONTROVERSIAL METHODS\n\nThe series of essays in defence of the historical accuracy of the Jewish\nand Christian Scriptures contributed by Mr. Gladstone to _Good Words_,\nhaving been revised and enlarged by their author, appeared last year as a\nseparate volume, under the somewhat defiant title of _The Impregnable Rock\nof Holy Scripture_.\n\nThe last of these essays, entitled \"Conclusion,\" contains an attack, or\nrather several attacks, couched in language which certainly does not err\nupon the side of moderation or of courtesy, upon statements and opinions of\nmine. One of these assaults is a deliberately devised attempt, not merely\nto rouse the theological prejudices ingrained in the majority of Mr.\nGladstone's readers, but to hold me up as a person who has endeavoured to\nbesmirch the personal character of the object of their veneration. For Mr.\nGladstone asserts that I have undertaken to try \"the character of our Lord\"\n(p. 268); and he tells the many who are, as I think unfortunately,\npredisposed {560} to place implicit credit in his assertions, that it has\nbeen reserved for me to discover that Jesus \"was no better than a\nlaw-breaker and an evil-doer!\" (p. 269).\n\nIt was extremely easy for me to prove, as I did in the pages of this Review\nlast December, that, under the most favourable interpretation, this amazing\ndeclaration must be ascribed to extreme confusion of thought. And, by\nbringing an abundance of good-will to the consideration of the subject, I\nhave now convinced myself that it is right for me to admit that a person of\nMr. Gladstone's intellectual acuteness really did mistake the reprobation\nof the course of conduct ascribed to Jesus, in a story of which I expressly\nsay I do not believe a word, for an attack on his character and a\ndeclaration that he was \"no better than a law-breaker and evil-doer.\" At\nany rate, so far as I can see, this is what Mr. Gladstone wished to be\nbelieved when he wrote the following passage:--\n\n    I must, however, in passing, make the confession that I did not state\n    with accuracy, as I ought to have done, the precise form of the\n    accusation. I treated it as an imputation on the action of our Lord; he\n    replies that it is only an imputation on the narrative of three\n    evangelists respecting Him. The difference, from his point of view, is\n    probably material, and I therefore regret that I overlooked it.[160]\n\nConsidering the gravity of the error which is here admitted, the fashion of\nthe withdrawal appears more singular than admirable. From my \"point of\nview\"--not from Mr. Gladstone's apparently--the little discrepancy between\nthe facts and Mr. Gladstone's {561} carefully offensive travesty of them is\n\"probably\" (only \"probably\") material. However, as Mr. Gladstone concludes\nwith an official expression of regret for his error, it is my business to\nreturn an equally official expression of gratitude for the attenuated\nreparation with which I am favoured.\n\nHaving cleared this specimen of Mr. Gladstone's controversial method out of\nthe way, I may proceed to the next assault, that on a passage in an article\non Agnosticism (_Nineteenth Century_, February 1889), published two years\nago. I there said, in referring to the Gadarene story, \"Everything I know\nof law and justice convinces me that the wanton destruction of other\npeople's property is a misdemeanour of evil example.\" On this, Mr.\nGladstone, continuing his candid and urbane observations, remarks\n(_Impregnable Rock_, p. 273) that, \"Exercising his rapid judgment on the\ntext,\" and \"not inquiring what anybody else had known or said about it,\" I\nhad missed a point in support of that \"accusation against our Lord\" which\nhe has now been constrained to admit I never made.\n\nThe \"point\" in question is that \"Gadara was a city of Greeks rather than of\nJews, from whence it might be inferred that to keep swine was innocent and\nlawful.\" I conceive that I have abundantly proved that Gadara answered\nexactly to the description here given of it; and I shall show, by-and-by,\nthat Mr. Gladstone has used language which, to my mind, involves the\nadmission that the authorities of the city were not Jews. But I have also\ntaken a {562} good deal of pains to show that the question thus raised is\nof no importance in relation to the main issue.[161] If Gadara was, as I\nmaintain it was, a city of the Decapolis, Hellenistic in constitution and\ncontaining a predominantly Gentile population, my case is superabundantly\nfortified. On the other hand, if the hypothesis that Gadara was under\nJewish government, which Mr. Gladstone seems sometimes to defend and\nsometimes to give up, were accepted, my case would be nowise weakened. At\nany rate, Gadara was not included within the jurisdiction of the tetrarch\nof Galilee; if it had been, the Galileans who crossed over the lake to\nGadara had no official status; and they had no more civil right to punish\nlaw-breakers than any other strangers.\n\nIn my turn, however, I may remark that there is a \"point\" which appears to\nhave escaped Mr. Gladstone's notice. And that is somewhat unfortunate,\nbecause his whole argument turns upon it. Mr. Gladstone assumes, as a\nmatter of course, that pig-keeping was an offence against the \"Law of\nMoses\"; and, therefore, that Jews who kept pigs were as much liable to\nlegal pains and penalties {563} as Englishmen who smuggle brandy\n(_Impregnable Rock_, p. 274).\n\nThere can be no doubt that, according to the Law, as it is defined in the\nPentateuch, the pig was an \"unclean\" animal, and that pork was a forbidden\narticle of diet. Moreover, since pigs are hardly likely to be kept for the\nmere love of those unsavoury animals, pig-owning, or swine-herding, must\nhave been, and evidently was, regarded as a suspicious and degrading\noccupation by strict Jews, in the first century A.D. But I should like to\nknow on what provision of the Mosaic Law, as it is laid down in the\nPentateuch, Mr. Gladstone bases the assumption, which is essential to his\ncase, that the possession of pigs and the calling of a swineherd were\nactually illegal. The inquiry was put to me the other day; and, as I could\nnot answer it, I turned up the article \"Schwein \" in Riehm's standard\n_Handwoerterbuch_, for help out of my difficulty; but unfortunately without\nsuccess. After speaking of the martyrdom which the Jews, under Antiochus\nEpiphanes, preferred to eating pork, the writer proceeds:--\n\n    It may be, nevertheless, that the practice of keeping pigs may have\n    found its way into Palestine in the Graeco-Roman time, in consequence of\n    the great increase of the non-Jewish population; yet there is no\n    evidence of it in the New Testament; the great herd of swine, 2000 in\n    number, mentioned in the narrative of the possessed, was feeding in the\n    territory of Gadara, which belonged to the Decapolis; and the prodigal\n    son became a swineherd with the native of a far country into which he\n    had wandered; in neither of these cases is there {564} reason for\n    thinking that the possessors of these herds were Jews.[162]\n\nHaving failed in my search, so far, I took up the next work of reference at\nhand, Kitto's _Cyclopaedia_ (vol. iii. 1876). There, under \"Swine,\" the\nwriter, Colonel Hamilton Smith, seemed at first to give me what I wanted,\nas he says that swine \"appear to have been repeatedly introduced and reared\nby the Hebrew people,[163] notwithstanding the strong prohibition in the\nLaw of Moses (Is. lxv. 4).\" But, in the first place, Isaiah's writings form\nno part of the \"Law of Moses\"; and, in the second place, the people\ndenounced by the prophet in this passage are neither the possessors of\npigs, nor swineherds, but those \"which eat swine's flesh and broth of\nabominable things is in their vessels.\" And when, in despair, I turned to\nthe provisions of the Law itself, my difficulty was not cleared up.\nLeviticus xi. 8 (Revised Version) says, in reference to the pig and other\nunclean animals: \"Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcases ye\nshall not touch.\" In the revised version of Deuteronomy xiv. 8 the words of\nthe prohibition are identical, and a skilful refiner might possibly satisfy\nhimself, even if he satisfied nobody else, that \"carcase\" means the body of\na live {565} animal as well as of a dead one; and that, since swineherds\ncould hardly avoid contact with their charges, their calling was implicitly\nforbidden.[164] Unfortunately, the authorised version expressly says \"dead\ncarcase\"; and thus the most rabbinically minded of reconcilers might find\nhis casuistry foiled by that great source of surprises, the \"original\nHebrew.\" That such check is at any rate possible, is clear from the fact\nthat the legal uncleanness of some animals, as food, did not interfere with\ntheir being lawfully possessed, cared for, and sold by Jews. The provisions\nfor the ransoming of unclean beasts (Lev. xxvii. 27) and for the redemption\nof their sucklings (Numbers xviii. 15) sufficiently prove this. As the late\nDr. Kalisch has observed in his _Commentary on Leviticus_, part ii. p. 129,\nnote:--\n\n    Though asses and horses, camels and dogs, were kept by the Israelites,\n    they were, to a certain extent, associated with the notion of impurity;\n    they might be turned to profitable account by their labour or\n    otherwise, but in respect to food they were an abomination.\n\nThe same learned commentator (_loc. cit._ p. 88) proves that the Talmudists\nforbade the rearing of pigs by Jews, unconditionally and everywhere; and\neven included it under the same ban as the study of Greek philosophy,\n\"since both alike were considered to lead to the desertion of the Jewish\nfaith.\" It is very possible, indeed probable, that the Pharisees of the\nfourth decade of our first century took as {566} strong a view of\npig-keeping as did their spiritual descendants. But, for all that, it does\nnot follow that the practice was illegal. The stricter Jews could not have\ndespised and hated swineherds more than they did publicans; but, so far as\nI know, there is no provision in the Law against the practice of the\ncalling of a tax-gatherer by a Jew. The publican was in fact very much in\nthe position of an Irish process-server at the present day--more, rather\nthan less, despised and hated on account of the perfect legality of his\noccupation. Except for certain sacrificial purposes, pigs were held in such\nabhorrence by the ancient Egyptians that swineherds were not permitted to\nenter a temple, or to intermarry with other castes; and any one who had\ntouched a pig, even accidentally, was unclean. But these very regulations\nprove that pig-keeping was not illegal; it merely involved certain civil\nand religious disabilities. For the Jews, dogs were typically \"unclean\"\nanimals; but, when that eminently pious Hebrew, Tobit, \"went forth\" with\nthe angel \"the young man's dog\" went \"with them\" (Tobit v. 16) without\napparent remonstrance from the celestial guide. I really do not see how an\nappeal to the Law could have justified any one in drowning Tobit's dog, on\nthe ground that his master was keeping and feeding an animal quite as\n\"unclean\" as any pig. Certainly the excellent Raguel must have failed to\nsee the harm of dog-keeping, for we are told that, on the travellers'\nreturn homewards, \"the dog went after them\" (xi. 4). {567}\n\nUntil better light than I have been able to obtain is thrown upon the\nsubject, therefore, it is obvious that Mr. Gladstone's argumentative house\nhas been built upon an extremely slippery quicksand; perhaps even has no\nfoundation at all.\n\nYet another \"point\" does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Gladstone, who is\nso much shocked that I attach no overwhelming weight to the assertions\ncontained in the synoptic Gospels, even when all three concur. These\nGospels agree in stating, in the most express, and to some extent verbally\nidentical, terms, that the devils entered the pigs at their own\nrequest,[165] and the third Gospel (viii. 31) tells us what the motive of\nthe demons was in asking the singular boon: \"They intreated him that he\nwould not command them to depart into the abyss.\" From this, it would seem\nthat the devils thought to exchange the heavy punishment of transportation\nto the abyss for the lighter penalty of imprisonment in swine. And some\ncommentators, more ingenious than respectful to the supposed chief actor in\nthis extraordinary fable, have dwelt, with satisfaction, upon the very\nunpleasant quarter of an hour which the evil spirits must have had, when\nthe headlong rush of their maddened tenements convinced them how completely\nthey were taken in. In the whole story there is not one solitary hint that\nthe destruction of {568} the pigs was intended as a punishment of their\nowners, or of the swineherds. On the contrary, the concurrent testimony of\nthe three narratives is to the effect that the catastrophe was the\nconsequence of diabolic suggestion. And, indeed, no source could be more\nappropriate for an act of such manifest injustice and illegality.\n\nI can but marvel that modern defenders of the faith should not be glad of\nany reasonable excuse for getting rid of a story which, if it had been\ninvented by Voltaire, would have justly let loose floods of orthodox\nindignation.\n\n\n\nThus, the hypothesis to which Mr. Gladstone so fondly clings finds no\nsupport in the provisions of the \"Law of Moses\" as that law is defined in\nthe Pentateuch; while it is wholly inconsistent with the concurrent\ntestimony of the synoptic Gospels, to which Mr. Gladstone attaches so much\nweight. In my judgment, it is directly contrary to everything which profane\nhistory tells us about the constitution and the population of the city of\nGadara; and it commits those who accept it to a story which, if it were\ntrue, would implicate the founder of Christianity in an illegal and\ninequitable act.\n\nSuch being the case, I consider myself excused from following Mr. Gladstone\nthrough all the meanderings of his late attempt to extricate himself from\nthe maze of historical and exegetical difficulties in which he is\nentangled. I content myself with assuring those who, with my paper (not Mr.\nGladstone's {569} version of my arguments) in hand, consult the original\nauthorities, that they will find full justification for every statement I\nhave made. But in order to dispose those who cannot, or will not, take that\ntrouble, to believe that the proverbial blindness of one that judges his\nown cause plays no part in inducing me to speak thus decidedly, I beg their\nattention to the following examination, which shall be as brief as I can\nmake it, of the seven propositions in which Mr. Gladstone professes to give\na faithful summary of my \"errors.\"\n\nWhen, in the middle of the seventeenth century, the Holy See declared that\ncertain propositions contained in the works of Bishop Jansen were\nheretical, the Jansenists of Port Royal replied that, while they were ready\nto defer to the Papal authority about questions of faith and morals, they\nmust be permitted to judge about questions of fact for themselves; and\nthat, really, the condemned propositions were not to be found in Jansen's\nwritings. As everybody knows, His Holiness and the Grand Monarque replied\nto this, surely not unreasonable, plea after the manner of Lord Peter in\nthe _Tale of a Tub_. It is, therefore, not without some apprehension of\nmeeting with a similar fate, that I put in a like plea against Mr.\nGladstone's Bull. The seven propositions declared to be false and\ncondemnable, in that kindly and gentle way which so pleasantly compares\nwith the authoritative style of the Vatican (No. 5 more particularly), may\nor may not be true. But they are not to be found in anything I have\nwritten. {570} And some of them diametrically contravene that which I have\nwritten. I proceed to prove my assertions.\n\nPROP. 1. _Throughout the paper he confounds together what I had\ndistinguished, namely, the city of Gadara and the vicinage attached to it,\nnot as a mere pomoerium, but as a rural district._\n\nIn my judgment, this statement is devoid of foundation. In my paper on \"The\nKeepers of the Herd of Swine\" I point out, at some length, that, \"in\naccordance with the ancient Hellenic practice,\" each city of the Decapolis\nmust have been \"surrounded by a certain amount of territory amenable to its\njurisdiction:\" and, to enforce this conclusion, I quote what Josephus says\nabout the \"villages that belonged to Gadara and Hippos.\" As I understand\nthe term _pomerium_ or _pomoerium_,[166] it means the space which,\naccording to Roman custom, was kept free from buildings, immediately within\nand without the walls of a city; and which defined the range of the\n_auspicia urbana_. The conception of a _pomoerium_ as a \"vicinage attached\nto\" a city, appears to be something quite novel and original. But then, to\nbe sure, I do not know how many senses Mr. Gladstone may attach to the word\n\"vicinage.\"\n\nWhether Gadara had a _pomoerium_, in the proper technical sense, or not, is\na point on which I offer no opinion. But that the city had a very\nconsiderable \"rural district\" attached to it and, notwithstanding {571} its\ndistinctness, amenable to the jurisdiction of the Gentile municipal\nauthorities, is one of the main points of my case.\n\nPROP. 2. _He more fatally confounds the local civil government and its\nfollowing, including, perhaps, the whole wealthy class and those attached\nto it, with the ethnical character of the general population._\n\nHaving survived confusion No. 1, which turns out not to be on my side, I am\nnow confronted in No. 2 with a \"more fatal\" error--and so it is, if there\nbe degrees of fatality; but, again, it is Mr. Gladstone's and not mine. It\nwould appear, from this proposition (about the grammatical interpretation\nof which, however, I admit there are difficulties), that Mr. Gladstone\nholds that the \"local civil government and its following among the\nwealthy,\" were ethnically different from the \"general population.\" On p.\n348 he further admits that the \"wealthy and the local governing power\" were\nfriendly to the Romans. Are we then to suppose that it was the persons of\nJewish \"ethnical character\" who favoured the Romans, while those of Gentile\n\"ethnical character\" were opposed to them? But if that supposition is\nabsurd, the only alternative is that the local civil government was\nethnically Gentile. This is exactly my contention.\n\nAt pp. 547 and 553 of the Essay on \"The Keepers of the Herd of Swine\" I\nhave fully discussed the question of the ethnical character of the general\npopulation. I have shown that, according to Josephus, who surely ought to\nhave known, Gadara was as much a Gentile {572} city as Ptolemais; I have\nproved that he includes Gadara amongst the cities \"that rose up against the\nJews that were amongst them,\" which is a pretty definite expression of his\nbelief that the \"ethnical character of the general population\" was Gentile.\nThere is no question here of Jews of the Roman party fighting with Jews of\nthe Zealot party, as Mr. Gladstone suggests. It is the non-Jewish and\nanti-Jewish general population which rises up against the Jews who had\nsettled \"among them.\"\n\nPROP. 3. _His one item of direct evidence as to the Gentile character of\nthe city refers only to the former and not to the latter._\n\nMore fatal still. But, once more, not to me. I adduce not one, but a\nvariety of \"items\" in proof of the non-Judaic character of the population\nof Gadara: the evidence of history; that of the coinage of the city; the\ndirect testimony of Josephus, just cited--to mention no others. I repeat,\nif the wealthy people and those connected with them--the \"classes\" and the\n\"hangers on\" of Mr. Gladstone's well-known taxonomy--were, as he appears to\nadmit they were, Gentiles; if the \"civil government\" of the city was in\ntheir hands, as the coinage proves it was; what becomes of Mr. Gladstone's\noriginal proposition in _The Impregnable Rock of Scripture_ that \"the\npopulation of Gadara, and still less (if less may be) the population of the\nneighbourhood,\" were \"Hebrews bound by the Mosaic law\"? And what is the\nimportance of estimating the precise proportion of Hebrews who may have\nresided, either in the city of Gadara {573} or in its dependant territory,\nwhen, as Mr. Gladstone now seems to admit (I am careful to say \"seems\"),\nthe government, and consequently the law, which ruled in that territory and\ndefined civil right and wrong was Gentile and not Judaic? But perhaps Mr.\nGladstone is prepared to maintain that the Gentile \"local civil government\"\nof a city of the Decapolis administered Jewish Law; and showed their\nrespect for it, more particularly, by stamping their coinage with effigies\nof the Emperors.\n\nIn point of fact, in his haste to attribute to me errors which I have not\ncommitted, Mr. Gladstone has given away his case.\n\nPROP. 4. _He fatally confounds the question of political party with those\nof nationality and of religion, and assumes that those who took the side of\nRome in the factions that prevailed could not be subject to the Mosaic\nLaw._\n\nIt would seem that I have a feline tenacity of life; once more, a \"fatal\nerror.\" But Mr. Gladstone has forgotten an excellent rule of controversy;\nsay what is true, of course, but mind that it is decently probable. Now it\nis not decently probable, hardly indeed conceivable, that any one who has\nread Josephus, or any other historian of the Jewish war, should be unaware\nthat there were Jews (of whom Josephus himself was one) who \"Romanised\"\nand, more or less openly, opposed the war party. But, however that may be,\nI assert that Mr. Gladstone neither has produced, nor can produce, a\npassage of my writing which affords the slightest {574} foundation for this\nparticular article of his indictment.\n\nPROP. 5. _His examination of the text of Josephus is alike one-sided,\ninadequate, and erroneous._\n\nEasy to say, hard to prove. So long as the authorities whom I have cited\nare on my side, I do not know why this singularly temperate and convincing\ndictum should trouble me. I have yet to become acquainted with Mr.\nGladstone's claims to speak with an authority equal to that of scholars of\nthe rank of Schuerer, whose obviously just and necessary emendations he so\nunceremoniously pooh-poohs.\n\nPROP. 6. _Finally, he sets aside, on grounds not critical or historical,\nbut partly subjective, the primary historical testimony on the subject,\nnamely, that of the three Synoptic Evangelists, who write as contemporaries\nand deal directly with the subject, neither of which is done by any other\nauthority._\n\nReally this is too much! The fact is, as anybody can see who will turn to\nmy article of February 1889, out of which all this discussion has arisen,\nthat the arguments upon which I rest the strength of my case touching the\nswine-miracle, are exactly \"historical\" and \"critical.\" Expressly, and in\nwords that cannot be misunderstood, I refuse to rest on what Mr. Gladstone\ncalls \"subjective\" evidence. I abstain from denying the possibility of the\nGadarene occurrence, and I even go so far as to speak of some physical\nanalogies to possession. In fact, my quondam opponent, Dr. Wace, shrewdly,\nbut quite fairly, made the most of these admissions, and stated that I had\n{575} removed the only \"consideration which would have been a serious\nobstacle\" in the way of his belief in the Gadarene story.[167]\n\nSo far from setting aside the authority of the synoptics on \"subjective\"\ngrounds, I have taken a great deal of trouble to show that my non-belief in\nthe story is based upon what appears to me to be evident; firstly, that the\naccounts of the three synoptic Gospels are not independent, but are founded\nupon a common source; secondly, that, even if the story of the common\ntradition proceeded from a contemporary, it would still be worthy of very\nlittle credit, seeing the manner in which the legends about mediaeval\nmiracles have been propounded by contemporaries. And in illustration of\nthis position I wrote a special essay about the miracles reported by\nEginhard.[168]\n\nIn truth, one need go no further than Mr. Gladstone's sixth proposition to\nbe convinced that contemporary testimony, even of well-known and\ndistinguished persons, may be but a very frail reed for the support of the\nhistorian, when theological prepossession blinds the witness.[169]\n\n{576}\n\nPROP. 7. _And he treats the entire question, in the narrowed form in which\nit arises upon secular testimony, as if it were capable of a solution so\nclear and summary as to warrant the use of the extremest weapons of\ncontroversy against those who presume to differ from him._\n\nThe six heretical propositions which have gone before are enunciated with\nsufficient clearness to enable me to prove without any difficulty that,\nwhosesoever they are, they are not mine. But number seven, I confess, is\ntoo hard for me. I cannot undertake to contradict that which I do not\nunderstand.\n\nWhat is the \"entire question\" which \"arises\" in a \"narrowed form\" upon\n\"secular testimony\"? After much guessing, I am fain to give up the\nconundrum. The \"question\" may be the ownership of the pigs; or the\nethnological character of the {577} Gadarenes; or the propriety of meddling\nwith other people's property without legal warrant. And each of these\nquestions might be so \"narrowed\" when it arose on \"secular testimony\" that\nI should not know where I was. So I am silent on this part of the\nproposition.\n\nBut I do dimly discern in the latter moiety of this mysterious paragraph a\nreproof of that use of \"the extremest weapons of controversy\" which is\nattributed to me. Upon which I have to observe that I guide myself in such\nmatters very much by the maxim of a great statesman, \"Do ut des.\" If Mr.\nGladstone objects to the employment of such weapons in defence, he would do\nwell to abstain from them in attack. He should not frame charges which he\nhas, afterwards, to admit are erroneous, in language of carefully\ncalculated offensiveness (_Impregnable Rock_, pp. 269-70); he should not\nassume that persons with whom he disagrees are so recklessly\nunconscientious as to evade the trouble of inquiring what has been said or\nknown about a grave question (_Impregnable Rock_, p. 273); he should not\nqualify the results of careful thought as \"hand-over-head reasoning\"\n(_Impregnable Rock_, p. 274); he should not, as in the extraordinary\npropositions which I have just analysed, make assertions respecting his\nopponent's position and arguments which are contradicted by the plainest\nfacts.\n\nPersons who, like myself, having spent their lives outside the political\nworld, yet take a mild and philosophical concern in what goes on in it,\noften find {578} it difficult to understand what our neighbours call the\npsychological moment of this or that party leader and are, occasionally,\nloth to believe in the seeming conditions of certain kinds of success. And\nwhen some chieftain, famous in political warfare, adventures into the\nregion of letters or of science, in full confidence that the methods which\nhave brought fame and honour in his own province will answer there, he is\napt to forget that he will be judged by these people, on whom rhetorical\nartifices have long ceased to take effect; and to whom mere dexterity in\nputting together cleverly ambiguous phrases, and even the great art of\noffensive misrepresentation, are unspeakably wearisome. And, if that\nweariness finds its expression in sarcasm, the offender really has no right\nto cry out. Assuredly, ridicule is no test of truth, but it is the\nrighteous meed of some kinds of error. Nor ought the attempt to confound\nthe expression of a revolted sense of fair dealing with arrogant impatience\nof contradiction, to restrain those to whom \"the extreme weapons of\ncontroversy\" come handy from using them. The function of police in the\nintellectual, if not in the civil, economy may sometimes be legitimately\ndischarged by volunteers.\n\n\n\nSome time ago, in one of the many criticisms with which I am favoured, I\nmet with the remark that, at our time of life, Mr. Gladstone and I might be\nbetter occupied than in fighting over the Gadarene pigs. And, if these too\nfamous swine were the only parties to the suit, I, for my part, should\nfully admit the {579} justice of the rebuke. But, under the beneficent rule\nof the Court of Chancery, in former times, it was not uncommon that a\nquarrel about a few perches of worthless land ended in the ruin of ancient\nfamilies and the engulfing of great estates; and I think that our\nadmonisher failed to observe the analogy--to note the momentous\nconsequences of the judgment which may be awarded in the present apparently\ninsignificant action _in re_ the swineherds of Gadara.\n\nThe immediate effect of such judgment will be the decision of the question\nwhether the men of the nineteenth century are to adopt the demonology of\nthe men of the first century as divinely revealed truth, or to reject it as\ndegrading falsity. The reverend Principal of King's College has delivered\nhis judgment in perfectly clear and candid terms. Two years since, Dr. Wace\nsaid that he believed the story as it stands; and consequently he holds, as\na part of divine revelation, that the spiritual world comprises devils,\nwho, under certain circumstances, may enter men and be transferred from\nthem to four-footed beasts. For the distinguished Anglican divine and\nBiblical scholar that is part and parcel of the teachings respecting the\nspiritual world which we owe to the founder of Christianity. It is an\ninseparable part of that Christian orthodoxy which, if a man rejects, he is\nto be considered and called an \"infidel.\" According to the ordinary rules\nof interpretation of language, Mr. Gladstone must hold the same view.\n\nIf antiquity and universality are valid tests of the truth of any belief,\nno doubt this is one of the beliefs {580} so certified. There are no known\nsavages, nor people sunk in the ignorance of partial civilisation, who do\nnot hold them. The great majority of Christians have held them and still\nhold them. Moreover, the oldest records we possess of the early conceptions\nof mankind in Egypt and in Mesopotamia prove that exactly such demonology,\nas is implied in the Gadarene story, formed the substratum, and, among the\nearly Accadians, apparently the greater part, of their supposed knowledge\nof the spiritual world. M. Lenormant's profoundly interesting work on\nBabylonian magic and the magical texts given in the Appendix to Professor\nSayce's _Hibbert Lectures_ leave no doubt on this head. They prove that the\ndoctrine of possession, and even the particular case of pig\npossession,[170] were firmly believed in by the Egyptians and the\nMesopotamians before the tribes of Israel invaded Palestine. And it is\nevident that these beliefs, from some time after the exile and probably\nmuch earlier, completely interpenetrated the Jewish mind, and thus became\ninseparably interwoven with the fabric of the synoptic Gospels.\n\nTherefore, behind the question of the acceptance of the doctrines of the\noldest heathen demonology as part of the fundamental beliefs of\nChristianity, there lies the question of the credibility of the Gospels,\nand of their claim to act as our instructors, outside that ethical {581}\nprovince in which they appeal to the consciousness of all thoughtful men.\nAnd still, behind this problem, there lies another--how far do these\nancient records give a sure foundation to the prodigious fabric of\nChristian dogma which has been built upon them by the continuous labours of\nspeculative theologians during eighteen centuries?\n\nI submit that there are few questions before the men of the rising\ngeneration on the answer to which the future hangs more fatally than this.\nWe are at the parting of the ways. Whether the twentieth century shall see\na recrudescence of the superstitions of mediaeval papistry, or whether it\nshall witness the severance of the living body of the ethical ideal of\nprophetic Israel from the carcase, foul with savage superstitions and\ncankered with false philosophy, to which the theologians have bound it,\nturns upon their final judgment of the Gadarene tale.\n\n\n\nThe gravity of the problems ultimately involved in the discussion of the\nlegend of Gadara will, I hope, excuse a persistence in returning to the\nsubject, to which I should not have been moved by merely personal\nconsiderations.\n\n\n\nWith respect to the diluvial invective which overflowed thirty-three pages\nof this Review last January, I doubt not that it has a catastrophic\nimportance in the estimation of its author. I, on the other hand, may be\npermitted to regard it as a mere spate; noisy and threatening while it\nlasted, but forgotten almost {582} as soon as it was over. Without my help,\nit will be judged by every instructed and clear-headed reader; and that is\nfortunate, because, were aid necessary, I have cogent reasons for\nwithholding it.\n\nIn an article characterised by the same qualities of thought and diction,\nentitled \"A Great Lesson,\" which appeared in this Review for September\n1887, the Duke of Argyll, firstly, charged the whole body of men of science\ninterested in the question with having conspired to ignore certain\ncriticisms of Mr. Darwin's theory of the origin and coral reefs; and,\nsecondly, he asserted that some person unnamed had \"actually induced\" Mr.\nJohn Murray to delay the publication of his views on that subject \"for two\nyears.\"\n\nIt was easy for me and for others to prove that the first statement was not\nonly, to use the Duke of Argyll's favourite expression, \"contrary to fact,\"\nbut that it was without any foundation whatever. The second statement\nrested on the Duke of Argyll's personal authority. All I could do was to\ndemand the production of the evidence for it. Up to the present time, so\nfar as I know, that evidence has not made its appearance; nor has there\nbeen any withdrawal of, or apology for, the erroneous charge.\n\nUnder these circumstances, most people will understand why the Duke of\nArgyll may feel quite secure of having the battle all to himself, whenever\nit pleases him to attack me.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{583}\n\nXVI\n\nHASISADRA'S ADVENTURE\n\nSome thousands of years ago, there was a city in Mesopotamia called\nSurippak. One night a strange dream came to a dweller therein, whose name,\nif rightly reported, was Hasisadra. The dream foretold the speedy coming of\na great flood; and it warned Hasisadra to lose no time in building a ship,\nin which, when notice was given, he, his family and friends, with their\ndomestic animals and a collection of the wild creatures and seed of plants\nof the land, might take refuge and be rescued from destruction. Hasisadra\nawoke, and at once acted upon the warning. A strong decked ship was built,\nand her sides were paid, inside and out, with the mineral pitch, or\nbitumen, with which the country abounded; the vessel's seaworthiness was\ntested, the cargo was stowed away, and a trusty pilot or steersman\nappointed.\n\nThe promised signal arrived. Wife and friends embarked; Hasisadra,\nfollowing, prudently \"shut the door,\" or, as we should say, put on the\nhatches; and Nes-Hea, the pilot, was left alone on deck to do {584} his\nbest for the ship. Thereupon a hurricane began to rage; rain fell in\ntorrents; the subterranean waters burst forth; a deluge swept over the\nland, and the wind lashed it into waves sky high; heaven and earth became\nmingled in chaotic gloom. For six days and seven nights the gale raged, but\nthe good ship held out until, on the seventh day, the storm lulled.\nHasisadra ventured on deck; and, seeing nothing but a waste of waters\nstrewed with floating corpses and wreck, wept over the destruction of his\nland and people. Far away, the mountains of Nizir were visible; the ship\nwas steered for them and ran aground upon the higher land. Yet another\nseven days passed by. On the seventh, Hasisadra sent forth a dove, which\nfound no resting place and returned; then he liberated a swallow, which\nalso came back; finally, a raven was let loose, and that sagacious bird,\nwhen it found that the water had abated, came near the ship, but refused to\nreturn to it. Upon this, Hasisadra liberated the rest of the wild animals,\nwhich immediately dispersed in all directions, while he, with his family\nand friends, ascending a mountain hard by, offered sacrifices upon its\nsummit to the gods.\n\n\n\nThe story thus given in summary abstract, told in an ancient Semitic\ndialect, is inscribed in cuneiform characters upon a tablet of burnt clay.\nMany thousands of such tablets, collected by Assurbanipal, King of Assyria\nin the middle of the seventh century B.C., were stored in the library of\nhis palace at {585} Nineveh; and, though in a sadly broken and mutilated\ncondition, they have yielded a marvellous amount of information to the\npatient and sagacious labour which modern scholars have bestowed upon them.\nAmong the multitude of documents of various kinds, this narrative of\nHasisadra's adventure has been found in a tolerably complete state. But\nAssyriologists agree that it is only a copy of a much more ancient work;\nand there are weighty reasons for believing that the story of Hasisadra's\nflood was well known in Mesopotamia before the year 2000 B.C.\n\nNo doubt, then, we are in presence of a narrative which has all the\nauthority which antiquity can confer; and it is proper to deal respectfully\nwith it, even though it is quite as proper, and indeed necessary, to act no\nless respectfully towards ourselves; and, before professing to put implicit\nfaith in it, to inquire what claim it has to be regarded as a serious\naccount of an historical event.\n\nIt is of no use to appeal to contemporary history, although the annals of\nBabylonia, no less than those of Egypt, go much further back than 2000 B.C.\nAll that can be said is, that the former are hardly consistent with the\nsupposition that any catastrophe, competent to destroy all the population,\nhas befallen the land since civilisation began, and that the latter are\nnotoriously silent about deluges. In such a case as this, however, the\nsilence of history does not leave the inquirer wholly at fault. Natural\nscience has something to say when the phenomena of nature {586} are in\nquestion. Natural science may be able to show, from the nature of the\ncountry, either that such an event as that described in the story is\nimpossible, or at any rate highly improbable; or, on the other hand, that\nit is consonant with probability. In the former case, the narrative must be\nsuspected or rejected; in the latter, no such summary verdict can be given:\non the contrary, it must be admitted that the story may be true. And then,\nif certain strangely prevalent canons of criticism are accepted, and if the\nevidence that an event might have happened is to be accepted as proof that\nit did happen, Assyriologists will be at liberty to congratulate one\nanother on the \"confirmation by modern science\" of the authority of their\nancient books.\n\nIt will be interesting, therefore, to inquire how far the physical\nstructure and the other conditions of the region in which Surippak was\nsituated are compatible with such a flood as is described in the Assyrian\nrecord.\n\nThe scene of Hasisadra's adventure is laid in the broad valley, six or\nseven hundred miles long, and hardly anywhere less than a hundred miles in\nwidth, which is traversed by the lower courses of the rivers Euphrates and\nTigris, and which is commonly known as the \"Euphrates valley.\" Rising, at\nthe one end, into a hill country, which gradually passes into the Alpine\nheights of Armenia; and, at the other, dipping beneath the shallow waters\nof the head of the Persian Gulf, which continues in the same direction,\nfrom north-west to south-east, for some eight hundred {587} miles farther,\nthe floor of the valley presents a gradual slope, from eight hundred feet\nabove the sea level to the depths of the southern end of the Persian Gulf.\nThe boundary between sea and land, formed by the extremest mudflats of the\ndelta of the two rivers, is but vaguely defined; and, year by year, it\nadvances seaward. On the north-eastern side, the western frontier ranges of\nPersia rise abruptly to great heights; on the south-western side, a more\ngradual ascent leads to a table-land of less elevation, which, very broad\nin the south, where it is occupied by the deserts of Arabia and of Southern\nSyria, narrows, northwards, into the highlands of Palestine, and is\ncontinued by the ranges of the Lebanon, the Antilebanon, and the Taurus,\ninto the highlands of Armenia.\n\nThe wide and gently inclined plain, thus inclosed between the gulf and the\nhighlands, on each side and at its upper extremity, is distinguishable into\ntwo regions of very different character, one of which lies north, and the\nother south of the parallel of Hit, on the Euphrates. Except in the\nimmediate vicinity of the river, the northern division is stony and\nscantily covered with vegetation, except in spring. Over the southern\ndivision, on the contrary, spreads a deep alluvial soil, in which even a\npebble is rare; and which, though, under the existing misrule, mainly a\nwaste of marsh and wilderness, needs only intelligent attention to become,\nas it was of old, the granary of western Asia. Except in the extreme south,\nthe rainfall is small and the air dry. The heat in summer is intense, while\nbitterly cold northern blasts {588} sweep the plain in winter. Whirlwinds\nare not uncommon; and, in the intervals of the periodical inundations, the\nfine, dry, powdery soil is swept, even by moderate breezes, into stifling\nclouds, or rather fogs, of dust. Low inequalities, elevations here and\ndepressions there, diversify the surface of the alluvial region. The latter\nare occupied by enormous marshes, while the former support the permanent\ndwellings of the present scanty and miserable population.\n\nIn antiquity, so long as the canalisation of the country was properly\ncarried out, the fertility of the alluvial plain enabled great and\nprosperous nations to have their home in the Euphrates valley. Its abundant\nclay furnished the materials for the masses of sun-dried and burnt bricks,\nthe remains of which, in the shape of huge artificial mounds, still testify\nto both the magnitude and the industry of the population, thousands of\nyears ago. Good cement is plentiful, while the bitumen, which wells from\nthe rocks at Hit and elsewhere, not only answers the same purpose, but is\nused to this day, as it was in Hasisadra's time, to pay the inside and the\noutside of boats.\n\nIn the broad lower course of the Euphrates, the stream rarely acquires a\nvelocity of more than three miles an hour, while the lower Tigris attains\ndouble that rate in times of flood. The water of both great rivers is\nmainly derived from the northern and eastern highlands in Armenia and in\nKurdistan, and stands at its lowest level in early autumn and in January.\n{589} But when the snows accumulated in the upper basins of the great\nrivers, during the winter, melt under the hot sunshine of spring, they\nrapidly rise,[171] and at length overflow their banks, covering the\nalluvial plain with a vast inland sea, interrupted only by the higher\nridges and hummocks which form islands in a seemingly boundless expanse of\nwater.\n\nIn the occurrence of these annual inundations lies one of several\nresemblances between the valley of the Euphrates and that of the Nile. But\nthere are important differences. The time of the annual flood is reversed,\nthe Nile being highest in autumn and winter, and lowest in spring and early\nsummer. The periodical overflows of the Nile, regulated by the great lake\nbasins in the south, are usually punctual in arrival, gradual in growth,\nand beneficial in operation. No lakes are interposed between the mountain\ntorrents of the upper basis of the Tigris and the Euphrates and their lower\ncourses. Hence, heavy rain, or an unusually rapid thaw in the uplands,\ngives rise to the sudden irruption of a vast volume of water which not even\nthe rapid Tigris, still less its more sluggish companion, can carry off in\ntime to prevent violent and dangerous overflows. Without an elaborate\nsystem of canalisation, providing an escape for such sudden excesses of the\nsupply of water, the annual floods of the Euphrates, and especially of the\n{590} Tigris, must always be attended with risk, and often prove harmful.\n\nThere are other peculiarities of the Euphrates valley which may\noccasionally tend to exacerbate the evils attendant on the inundations. It\nis very subject to seismic disturbances; and the ordinary consequences of a\nsharp earthquake shock might be seriously complicated by its effect on a\nbroad sheet of water. Moreover, the Indian Ocean lies within the region of\ntyphoons; and if, at the height of an inundation, a hurricane from the\nsouth-east swept up the Persian Gulf, driving its shallow waters upon the\ndelta and damming back the outflow, perhaps for hundreds of miles\nup-stream, a diluvial catastrophe, fairly up to the mark of Hasisadra's,\nmight easily result.[172]\n\nThus there seems to be no valid reason for rejecting Hasisadra's story on\nphysical grounds. I do not gather from the narrative that the \"mountains of\nNizir\" were supposed to be submerged, but merely that they came into view\nabove the distant horizon of the waters, as the vessel drove in that\ndirection. Certainly the ship is not supposed to ground on any of their\nhigher summits, for Hasisadra has to ascend a peak in order to offer his\nsacrifice. The country of Nizir lay on the north-eastern side of the\nEuphrates {591} valley, about the courses of the two rivers Zab, which\nenter the Tigris where it traverses the plain of Assyria some eight or nine\nhundred feet above the sea; and, so far as I can judge from maps[173] and\nother sources of information, it is possible, under the circumstances\nsupposed, that such a ship as Hasisadra's might drive before a southerly\ngale, over a continuously flooded country, until it grounded on some of the\nlow hills between which both the lower and the upper Zab enter upon the\nAssyrian plain.\n\nThe tablet which contains the story under consideration is the eleventh of\na series of twelve. Each of these answers to a month, and to the\ncorresponding sign of the Zodiac. The Assyrian year began with the spring\nequinox; consequently, the eleventh month, called \"the rainy,\" answers to\nour January-February, and to the sign which corresponds with our Aquarius.\nThe aquatic adventure of Hasisadra, therefore, is not inappropriately\nplaced. It is curious, however, that the season thus indirectly assigned to\nthe flood is not that of the present highest level of the rivers. It is too\nlate for the winter rise and too early for the spring floods.\n\nI think it must be admitted that, so far, the physical cross-examination to\nwhich Hasisadra has been subjected does not break down his story. On the\ncontrary, he proves to have kept it in all essential respects[174] within\nthe bounds of probability or {592} possibility. However, we have not yet\ndone with him. For the conditions which obtained in the Euphrates valley,\nfour or five thousand years ago, may have differed to such an extent from\nthose which now exist that we should be able to convict him of having made\nup his tale. But here again everything is in favour of his credibility.\nIndeed, he may claim very powerful support, for it does not lie in the\nmouths of those who accept the authority of the Pentateuch to deny that the\nEuphrates valley was what it is, even six thousand years back. According to\nthe book of Genesis, Phrat and Hiddekel--the Euphrates and the Tigris--are\ncoeval with Paradise. An edition of the Scriptures, recently published\nunder high authority, with an elaborate apparatus of \"Helps\" for the use of\nstudents--and therefore, as I am bound to suppose, purged of all statements\nthat could by any possibility mislead the young--assigns the year B.C. 4004\nas the date of Adam's too brief residence in that locality.\n\nBut I am far from depending on this authority for the age of the\nMesopotamian plain. On the contrary, I venture to rely, with much more\nconfidence, on another kind of evidence, which tends to show that the age\nof the great rivers must be carried back to a date earlier than that at\nwhich our ingenuous youth is instructed that the earth came into existence.\nFor, the alluvial deposit having been brought down by the rivers, they must\nneeds be older than the plain it {593} forms, as navvies must needs\nantecede the embankment painfully built up by the contents of their\nwheelbarrows. For thousands of years, heat and cold, rain, snow, and frost,\nthe scrubbing of glaciers, and the scouring of torrents laden with sand and\ngravel, have been wearing down the rocks of the upper basins of the rivers,\nover an area of many thousand square miles; and these materials, ground to\nfine powder in the course of their long journey, have slowly subsided, as\nthe water which carried them spread out and lost its velocity in the sea.\nIt is because this process is still going on that the shore of the delta\nconstantly encroaches on the head of the gulf[175] into which the two\nrivers are constantly throwing the waste of Armenia and of Kurdistan.\nHence, as might be expected, fluviatile and marine shells are common in the\nalluvial deposit; and Loftus found strata, containing subfossil marine\nshells of species now living, in the Persian Gulf, at Warka, two hundred\nmiles in a straight line from the shore of the delta.[176] It follows that,\nif a trustworthy estimate of the average rate of growth of the alluvial can\nbe formed, the lowest limit (by no means the highest limit) of age of the\nrivers can be determined. All such estimates are beset {594} with sources\nof error of very various kinds; and the best of them can only be regarded\nas approximations to the truth. But I think it will be quite safe to assume\na maximum rate of growth of four miles in a century for the lower half of\nthe alluvial plain.\n\nNow, the cycle of narratives of which Hasisadra's adventure forms a part\ncontains allusions not only to Surippak, the exact position of which is\ndoubtful, but to other cities, such as Erech. The vast ruins at the present\nvillage of Warka have been carefully explored and determined to be all that\nremains of that once great and flourishing city, \"Erech the lofty.\"\nSupposing that the two hundred miles of alluvial country, which separates\nthem from the head of the Persian Gulf at present, have been deposited at\nthe very high rate of four miles in a century, it will follow that 4000\nyears ago, or about the year 2100 B.C., the city of Erech still lay forty\nmiles inland. Indeed, the city might have been built a thousand years\nearlier. Moreover, there is plenty of independent archaeological and other\nevidence that in the whole thousand years, 2000 to 3000 B.C., the alluvial\nplain was inhabited by a numerous people, among whom industry, art, and\nliterature had attained a very considerable development. And it can be\nshown that the physical conditions and the climate of the Euphrates valley,\nat that time, must have been extremely similar to what they are now.\n\nThus, once more, we reach the conclusion that, as a question of physical\nprobability, there is no ground for objecting to the reality of Hasisadra's\nadventure. {595} It would be unreasonable to doubt that such a flood might\nhave happened, and that such a person might have escaped in the way\ndescribed, any time during the last 5000 years. And if the postulate of\nloose thinkers in search of scientific \"confirmations\" of questionable\nnarratives--proof that an event may have happened is evidence that it did\nhappen--is to be accepted, surely Hasisadra's story is \"confirmed by modern\nscientific investigation\" beyond all cavil. However, it may be well to\npause before adopting this conclusion, because the original story, of which\nI have set forth only the broad outlines, contains a great many statements\nwhich rest upon just the same foundation as those cited, and yet are hardly\nlikely to meet with general acceptance. The account of the circumstances\nwhich led up to the flood, of those under which Hasisadra's adventure was\nmade known to his descendant, of certain remarkable incidents before and\nafter the flood, are inseparably bound up with the details already given.\nAnd I am unable to discover any justification for arbitrarily picking out\nsome of these and dubbing them historical verities, while rejecting the\nrest as legendary fictions. They stand or fall together.\n\nBefore proceeding to the consideration of these less satisfactory details,\nit is needful to remark that Hasisadra's adventure is a mere episode in a\ncycle of stories of which a personage, whose name is provisionally read\n\"Izdubar,\" is the centre. The nature of Izdubar hovers vaguely between the\nheroic and the divine; sometimes he seems a mere man, sometimes {596}\napproaches so closely to the divinities of fire and of the sun as to be\nhardly distinguishable from them. As I have already mentioned, the tablet\nwhich sets forth Hasisadra's perils is one of twelve; and, since each of\nthese represents a month and bears a story appropriate to the corresponding\nsign of the Zodiac, great weight must be attached to Sir Henry Rawlinson's\nsuggestion that the epos of Izdubar is a poetical embodiment of solar\nmythology.\n\nIn the earlier books of the epos, the hero, not content with rejecting the\nproffered love of the Chaldaean Aphrodite, Istar, freely expresses his very\nlow estimate of her character; and it is interesting to observe that, even\nin this early stage of human experience, men had reached a conception of\nthat law of nature which expresses the inevitable consequences of an\nimperfect appreciation of feminine charms. The injured goddess makes\nIzdubar's life a burden to him, until at last, sick in body and sorry in\nmind, he is driven to seek aid and comfort from his forbears in the world\nof spirits. So this antitype of Odysseus journeys to the shore of the\nwaters of death, and there takes ship with a Chaldaean Charon, who carries\nhim within hail of his ancestor Hasisadra. That venerable personage not\nonly gives Izdubar instructions how to regain his health, but tells him,\nsomewhat _a propos des bottes_ (after the manner of venerable personages),\nthe long story of his perilous adventure; and how it befell that he, his\nwife, and his steersman came to dwell among the blessed gods, without\npassing through the portals of death like ordinary mortals. {597}\n\nAccording to the full story, the sins of mankind had become grievous; and,\nat a council of the gods, it was resolved to extirpate the whole race by a\ngreat flood. And, once more, let us note the uniformity of human\nexperience. It would appear that, four thousand years ago, the obligations\nof confidential intercourse about matters of state were sometimes\nviolated--of course from the best of motives. Ea, one of the three chiefs\nof the Chaldaean Pantheon, the god of justice and of practical wisdom, was\nalso the god of the sea; and, yielding to the temptation to do a friend a\ngood turn, irresistible to kindly seafaring folks of all ranks, he warned\nHasisadra of what was coming. When Bel subsequently reproached him for this\nbreach of confidence, Ea defended himself by declaring that he did not tell\nHasisadra anything; he only sent him a dream. This was undoubtedly sailing\nvery near the wind; but the attribution of a little benevolent obliquity of\nconduct to one of the highest of the gods is a trifle compared with the\ntruly Homeric anthropomorphism which characterises other parts of the epos.\n\nThe Chaldaean deities are, in truth, extremely human; and, occasionally, the\nnarrator does not scruple to represent them in a manner which is not only\ninconsistent with our idea of reverence, but is sometimes distinctly\nhumorous.[177] When the storm is at its height, he exhibits them flying in\na state of panic to Anu, the god of heaven, and crouching {598} before his\nportal like frightened dogs. As the smoke of Hasisadra's sacrifice arises,\nthe gods, attracted by the sweet savour, are compared to swarms of flies. I\nhave already remarked that the lady Istar's reputation is torn to shreds;\nwhile she and Ea scold Bel handsomely for his ferocity and injustice in\ndestroying the innocent along with the guilty. One is reminded of Here hung\nup with weighted heels; of misleading dreams sent by Zeus; of Ares howling\nas he flies from the Trojan battlefield; and of the very questionable\ndealings of Aphrodite with Helen and Paris.\n\nBut to return to the story. Bel was, at first, excluded from the sacrifice\nas the author of all the mischief; which really was somewhat hard upon him,\nsince the other gods agreed to his proposal. But eventually a\nreconciliation takes place; the great bow of Anu is displayed in the\nheavens; Bel agrees that he will be satisfied with what war, pestilence,\nfamine, and wild beasts can do in the way of destroying men; and that,\nhenceforward, he will not have recourse to extraordinary measures. Finally,\nit is Bel himself who, by way of making amends, transports Hasisadra, his\nwife, and the faithful Nes-Hea to the abode of the gods.\n\nIt is as indubitable as it is incomprehensible to most of us, that, for\nthousands of years, a great people, quite as intelligent as we are, and\nliving in as high a state of civilisation as that which had been attained\nin the greater part of Europe a few centuries ago, entertained not the\nslightest doubt that Anu, {599} Bel, Ea, Istar, and the rest, were real\npersonages, possessed of boundless powers for good and evil. The sincerity\nof the monarchs whose inscriptions gratefully attribute their victories to\nMerodach, or to Assur, is as little to be questioned as that of the authors\nof the hymns and penitential psalms which give full expression to the\nheights and depths of religious devotion. An \"infidel\" bold enough to deny\nthe existence, or to doubt the influence, of these deities probably did not\nexist in all Mesopotamia; and even constructive rebellion against their\nauthority was apt to end in the deprivation, not merely of the good name,\nbut of the skin of the offender. The adherents of modern theological\nsystems dismiss these objects of the love and fear of a hundred generations\nof their equals, offhand, as \"gods of the heathen,\" mere creations of a\nwicked and idolatrous imagination; and, along with them, they disown, as\nsenseless, the crude theology, with its gross anthropomorphism and its low\nethical conception of the divinity, which satisfied the pious souls of\nChaldaea.\n\nI imagine, though I do not presume to be sure, that any endeavour to save\nthe intellectual and moral credit of Chaldaean religion, by suggesting the\napplication to it of that universal solvent of absurdities, the allegorical\nmethod, would be scouted; I will not even suggest that any ingenuity can be\nequal to the discovery of the antitypes of the personifications effected by\nthe religious imagination of later ages, in the triad Anu, Ea, and Bel,\nstill less in Istar. Therefore, unless some plausible reconciliatory scheme\n{600} should be propounded by a Neo-Chaldaean devotee (and, with\nNeo-Buddhists to the fore, this supposition is not so wild as it looks), I\nsuppose the moderns will continue to smile, in a superior way, at the\ngrievous absurdity of the polytheistic idolatry of these ancient people.\n\nIt is probably a congenital absence of some faculty which I ought to\npossess which withholds me from adopting this summary procedure. But I am\nnot ashamed to share David Hume's want of ability to discover that\npolytheism is, in itself, altogether absurd. If we are bound, or permitted,\nto judge the government of the world by human standards, it appears to me\nthat directorates are proved, by familiar experience, to conduct the\nlargest and the most complicated concerns quite as well as solitary\ndespots. I have never been able to see why the hypothesis of a divine\nsyndicate should be found guilty of innate absurdity. Those Assyrians, in\nparticular, who held Assur to be the one supreme and creative deity, to\nwhom all the other supernal powers were subordinate, might fairly ask that\nthe essential difference between their system and that which obtains among\nthe great majority of their modern theological critics should be\ndemonstrated. In my apprehension, it is not the quantity, but the quality,\nof the persons, among whom the attributes of divinity are distributed,\nwhich is the serious matter. If the divine might is associated with no\nhigher ethical attributes than those which obtain among ordinary men; if\nthe divine intelligence is supposed to be so imperfect {601} that it cannot\nforesee the consequences of its own contrivances; if the supernal powers\ncan become furiously angry with the creatures of their omnipotence and, in\ntheir senseless wrath, destroy the innocent along with the guilty; or if\nthey can show themselves to be as easily placated by presents and gross\nflattery as any oriental or occidental despot; if, in short, they are only\nstronger than mortal men and no better, as it must be admitted Hasisadra's\ndeities proved themselves to be--then, surely, it is time for us to look\nsomewhat closely into their credentials, and to accept none but conclusive\nevidence of their existence.\n\nTo the majority of my respected contemporaries this reasoning will\ndoubtless appear feeble, if not worse. However, to my mind, such are the\nonly arguments by which the Chaldaean theology can be satisfactorily upset.\nSo far from there being any ground for the belief that Ea, Anu, and Bel\nare, or ever were, real entities, it seems to me quite infinitely more\nprobable that they are products of the religious imagination, such as are\nto be found everywhere and in all ages, so long as that imagination riots\nuncontrolled by scientific criticism.\n\nIt is on these grounds that I venture, at the risk of being called an\natheist by the ghosts of all the principals of all the colleges of\nBabylonia, or by their living successors among the Neo-Chaldaeans, if that\nsect should arise, to express my utter disbelief in the gods of Hasisadra.\nHence, it follows, that I find Hasisadra's account of their share in his\nadventure {602} incredible; and, as the physical details of the flood are\ninseparable from its theophanic accompaniments, and are guaranteed by the\nsame authority, I must let them go with the rest. The consistency of such\ndetails with probability counts for nothing. The inhabitants of Chaldaea\nmust always have been familiar with inundations; probably no generation\nfailed to witness an inundation which rose unusually high, or was rendered\nserious by coincident atmospheric, or other, disturbances. And the memory\nof the general features of any exceptionally severe and devastating flood,\nwould be preserved by popular tradition for long ages. What, then, could be\nmore natural than that a Chaldaean poet should seek for the incidents of a\ngreat catastrophe among such phenomena? In what other way than by such an\nappeal to their experience could he so surely awaken in his audience the\ntragic pity and terror? What possible ground is there for insisting that he\nmust have had some individual flood in view, and that his history is\nhistorical, in the sense that the account of the effects of a hurricane in\nthe Bay of Bengal, in the year 1875, is historical?\n\n\n\nMore than three centuries after the time of Assurbanipal, Berosus of\nBabylon, born in the reign of Alexander the Great, wrote an account of the\nhistory of his country in Greek. The work of Berosus has vanished; but\nextracts from it--how far faithful is uncertain--have been preserved by\nlater writers. Among these occurs the well-known {603} story of the Deluge\nof Xisuthros, which is evidently built upon the same foundation as that of\nHasisadra. The incidents of the divine warning, the building of the ship,\nthe sending out of birds, the ascension of the hero, betray their common\norigin. But stories, like Madeira, acquire a heightened flavour with time\nand travel; and the version of Berosus is characterised by those\ncircumstantial improbabilities which habitually gather round the legend of\na legend. The later narrator knows the exact day of the month on which the\nflood began. The dimensions of the ship are stated with Munchausenian\nprecision at five stadia by two--say, half by one-fifth of an English mile.\nThe ship runs aground among the \"Gordaean mountains\" to the south of Lake\nVan, in Armenia, beyond the limits of any imaginable real inundation of the\nEuphrates valley; and, by way of climax, we have the assertion, worthy of\nthe sailor who said that he had brought up one of Pharaoh's chariot wheels\non the fluke of his anchor in the Red Sea, that pilgrims visited the\nlocality and made amulets of the bitumen which they scraped off from the\nstill extant remains of the mighty ship of Xisuthros.\n\nSuppose that some later polyhistor, as devoid of critical faculty as most\nof his tribe, had found the version of Berosus, as well as another much\nnearer the original story; that, having too much respect for his\nauthorities to make up a _tertium quid_ of his own, out of the materials\noffered, he followed a practice, common enough among ancient and,\nparticularly, among Semitic historians, of dividing {604} both into\nfragments and piecing them together, without troubling himself very much\nabout the resulting repetitions and inconsistencies; the product of such a\nprimitive editorial operation would be a narrative analogous to that which\ntreats of the Noachian deluge in the book of Genesis. For the Pentateuchal\nstory is indubitably a patchwork, composed of fragments of at least two,\ndifferent and partly discrepant, narratives, quilted together in such an\ninartistic fashion that the seams remain conspicuous. And, in the matter of\ncircumstantial exaggeration, it in some respects excels even the\nsecond-hand legend of Berosus.\n\nThere is a certain practicality about the notion of taking refuge from\nfloods and storms in a ship provided with a steersman; but, surely, no one\nwho had ever seen more water than he could wade through would dream of\nfacing even a moderate breeze, in a huge three-storied coffer, or box,\nthree hundred cubits long, fifty wide and thirty high, left to drift\nwithout rudder or pilot.[178] Not content with giving the exact year of\nNoah's age in which the flood began, the Pentateuchal story adds the month\nand the day of {605} the month. It is the Deity himself who \"shuts in\"\nNoah. The modest week assigned to the full deluge in Hasisadra's story\nbecomes forty days, in one of the Pentateuchal accounts, and a hundred and\nfifty in the other. The flood, which, in the version of Berosus, has grown\nso high as to cast the ship among the mountains of Armenia, is improved\nupon in the Hebrew account until it covers \"all the high hills that were\nunder the whole heaven\"; and, when it begins to subside, the ark is left\nstranded on the summit of the highest peak, commonly identified with Ararat\nitself.\n\nWhile the details of Hasisadra's adventure are, at least, compatible with\nthe physical conditions of the Euphrates valley, and, as we have seen,\ninvolve no catastrophe greater than such as might be brought under those\nconditions, many of the very precisely stated details of Noah's flood\ncontradict some of the best established results of scientific inquiry.\n\nIf it is certain that the alluvium of the Mesopotamian plain has been\nbrought down by the Tigris and the Euphrates, then it is no less certain\nthat the physical structure of the whole valley has persisted, without\nmaterial modification, for many thousand years before the date assigned to\nthe flood. If the summits, even of the moderately elevated ridges which\nimmediately bound the valley, still more those of the Kurdish and Armenian\nmountains, were ever covered by water, for even forty days, that water must\nhave extended over the whole earth. If the earth was thus covered, anywhere\nbetween 4000 and 5000 years ago, or, at any other time, since the {606}\nhigher terrestrial animals came into existence, they must have been\ndestroyed from the whole face of it, as the Pentateuchal account declares\nthey were three several times (Genesis vii. 21, 22, 23), in language which\ncannot be made more emphatic, or more solemn, than it is; and the present\npopulation must consist of the descendants of emigrants from the ark. And,\nif that is the case, then, as has often been pointed out, the sloths of the\nBrazilian forests, the kangaroos of Australia, the great tortoises of the\nGalapagos islands, must have respectively hobbled, hopped, and crawled over\nmany thousand miles of land and sea from \"Ararat\" to their present\nhabitations. Thus, the unquestionable facts of the geographical\ndistribution of recent land animals, alone, form an insuperable obstacle to\nthe acceptance of the assertion that the kinds of animals composing the\npresent terrestrial fauna have been, at any time, universally destroyed in\nthe way described in the Pentateuch.\n\nIt is upon this and other unimpeachable grounds, that, as I ventured to say\nsome time ago, persons who are duly conversant with even the elements of\nnatural science decline to take the Noachian deluge seriously; and that, as\nI also pointed out, candid theologians, who, without special scientific\nknowledge, have appreciated the weight of scientific arguments, have long\nsince given it up. But, as Goethe has remarked, there is nothing more\nterrible than energetic ignorance[179]; and there are, even yet, very {607}\nenergetic people, who are neither candid, nor clearheaded, nor theologians,\nstill less properly instructed in the elements of natural science, who make\nprodigious efforts to obscure the effect of these plain truths, and to\nconceal their real surrender of the historical character of Noah's deluge\nunder cover of the smoke of a great discharge of pseudoscientific\nartillery. They seem to imagine that the proofs which abound in all parts\nof the world, of large oscillations of the relative level of land and sea,\ncombined with the probability that, when the sea-level was rising, sudden\nincursions of the sea, like that which broke in over Holland and formed the\nZuyder Zee, may have often occurred, can be made to look like evidence that\nsomething that, by courtesy, might be called a general Deluge has really\ntaken place. Their discursive energy drags misunderstood truth into their\nservice; and \"the glacial epoch\" is as sure to crop up among them as King\nCharles's head in a famous memorial--with about as much appropriateness.\nThe old story of the raised beach on Moel Tryfaen is trotted out; though,\neven if the facts are as yet rightly interpreted, there is not a shadow of\nevidence that the change of sea-level in that locality was sudden, or that\nglacial Welshmen would have known it was taking place.[180] Surely it is\ndifficult to perceive the relevancy of bringing in something that happened\nin the glacial {608} epoch (if it did happen) to account for the tradition\nof a flood in the Euphrates valley between 2000 and 3000 B.C. But the date\nof the Noachian flood is solidly fixed by the sole authority for it; no\nshuffling of the chronological data will carry it so far back as 3000 B.C.;\nand the Hebrew epos agrees with the Chaldaean in placing it after the\ndevelopment of a somewhat advanced civilisation. The only authority for the\nNoachian deluge assures us that, before it visited the earth, Cain had\nbuilt cities; Jubal had invented harps and organs; while mankind had\nadvanced so far beyond the neolithic, nay even the bronze, stage that\nTubal-cain was a worker in iron. Therefore, if the Noachian legend is to be\ntaken for the history of an event which happened in the glacial epoch, we\nmust revise our notions of pleistocene civilisation. On the other hand, if\nthe Pentateuchal story only means something quite different, that happened\nsomewhere else, thousands of years earlier, dressed up, what becomes of its\ncredit as history? I wonder what would be said to a modern historian who\nasserted that Pekin was burnt down in 1886, and then tried to justify the\nassertion by adducing evidence of the Great Fire of London in 1666. Yet the\nattempt to save the credit of the Noachian story by reference to something\nwhich is supposed to have happened in the far north, in the glacial epoch,\nis far more preposterous.\n\nMoreover, these dust-raising dialecticians ignore some of the most\nimportant and well-known facts {609} which bear upon the question. Anything\nmore than a parochial acquaintance with physical geography and geology\nwould suffice to remind its possessor that the Holy Land itself offers a\nstanding protest against bringing such a deluge as that of Noah anywhere\nnear it, either in historical times or in the course of that pleistocene\nperiod, of which the \"great ice age\" formed a part.\n\nJudaea and Galilee, Moab and Gilead, occupy part of that extensive tableland\nat the summit of the western boundary of the Euphrates valley, to which I\nhave already referred. If that valley had ever been filled with water to a\nheight sufficient, not indeed to cover a third of Ararat, in the north, or\nhalf some of the mountains of the Persian frontier in the east, but to\nreach even four or five thousand feet, it must have stood over the\nPalestinian hog's-back, and have filled, up to the brim, every depression\non its surface. Therefore it could not have failed to fill that remarkable\ntrench in which the Dead Sea, the Jordan, and the Sea of Galilee lie, and\nwhich is known as the \"Jordan-Arabah\" valley.\n\nThis long and deep hollow extends more than 200 miles, from near the site\nof ancient Dan in the north, to the water-parting at the head of the Wady\nArabah in the south; and its deepest part, at the bottom of the basin of\nthe Dead Sea, lies 2500 feet below the surface of the adjacent\nMediterranean. The lowest portion of the rim of the Jordan-Arabah valley is\nsituated at the village of El Fuleh, 257 feet above the Mediterranean.\nEverywhere else the {610} circumjacent heights rise to a very much greater\naltitude. Hence, of the water which stood over the Syrian tableland, when\nas much drained off as could run away, enough would remain to form a \"Mere\"\nwithout an outlet, 2757 feet deep, over the present site of the Dead Sea.\nFrom this time forth, the level of the Palestinian mere could be lowered\nonly by evaporation. It is an extremely interesting fact, which has happily\nescaped capture for the purposes of the energetic misunderstanding, that\nthe valley, at one time, was filled, certainly within 150 feet of this\nheight--probably higher. And it is almost equally certain, that the time at\nwhich this great Jordan-Arabah mere reached its highest level coincides\nwith the glacial epoch. But then the evidence which goes to prove this,\nalso leads to the conclusion that this state of things obtained at a period\nconsiderably older than even 4004 B.C., when the world, according to the\n\"Helps\" (or shall we say \"Hindrances\") provided for the simple student of\nthe Bible, was created; that it was not brought about by any diluvial\ncatastrophe, but was the result of a change in the relative activities of\ncertain natural operations which are quietly going on now; and that, since\nthe level of the mere began to sink, many thousand years ago, no serious\ncatastrophe of any description has affected the valley.\n\nThe evidence that the Jordan-Arabah valley really was once filled with\nwater, the surface of which reached within 160 feet of the level of the\npass of Jezrael, and possibly stood higher, is this: Remains {611} of\nalluvial strata, containing shells of the freshwater mollusks which still\ninhabit the valley, worn down into terraces by waves which long rippled at\nthe same level, and furrowed by the channels excavated by modern rainfalls,\nhave been found at the former height; and they are repeated, at intervals,\nlower down, until the Ghor, or plain of the Jordan, itself an alluvial\ndeposit, is reached. These strata attain a considerable thickness; and they\nindicate that the epoch at which the freshwater mere of Palestine reached\nits highest level is extremely remote; that its diminution has taken place\nvery slowly, and with periods of rest, during which the first formed\ndeposits were cut down into terraces. This conclusion is strikingly borne\nout by other facts. A volcanic region stretches from Galilee to Gilead and\nthe Hauran, on each side of the northern end of the valley. Some of the\nstreams of basaltic lava which have been thrown out from its craters and\nclefts in times of which history has no record, have run athwart the course\nof the Jordan itself, or of that of some of its tributary streams. The lava\nstreams, therefore, must be of later date than the depressions they fill.\nAnd yet, where they have thus temporarily dammed the Jordan and the Jermuk,\nthese streams have had time to cut through the hard basalts and lay bare\nthe beds, over which, before the lava streams invaded them, they flowed.\n\nIn fact, the antiquity of the present Jordan-Arabah valley, as a hollow in\na tableland, out of reach of the sea, and troubled by no diluvial or other\n{612} disturbances, beyond the volcanic eruptions of Gilead and of Galilee,\nis vast, even as estimated by a geological standard. No marine deposits of\nlater than miocene age occur in or about it; and there is every reason to\nbelieve that the Syro-Arabian plateau has been dry land, throughout the\npliocene and later epochs, down to the present time. Raised beaches,\ncontaining recent shells, on the Levantine shores of the Mediterranean and\non those of the Red Sea, testify to a geologically recent change of the sea\nlevel to the extent of 250 or 300 feet, probably produced by the slow\nelevation of the land; and, as I have already remarked, the alluvial plain\nof the Euphrates and Tigris appears to have been affected in the same way\nthough seemingly to a less extent. But of violent, or catastrophic, change\nthere is no trace. Even the volcanic outbursts have flowed in even sheets\nover the old land surface; and the long lines of the horizontal terraces\nwhich remain, testify to the geological insignificance of such earthquakes\nas have taken place. It is, indeed, possible that the original formation of\nthe valley may have been determined by the well-known fault, along which\nthe western rocks are relatively depressed and the eastern elevated. But,\nwhether that fault was effected slowly or quickly, and whenever it came\ninto existence, the excavation of the valley to its present width, no less\nthan the sculpturing of its steep walls and of the innumerable deep ravines\nwhich score them down to the very bottom, are indubitably due to the\noperation of rain and streams, during an enormous length of time, {613}\nwithout interruption or disturbance of any magnitude. The alluvial deposits\nwhich have been mentioned are continued into the lateral ravines, and have\nmore or less filled them. But, since the waters have been lowered, these\ndeposits have been cut down to great depths, and are still being excavated\nby the present temporary, or permanent, streams. Hence, it follows, that\nall these ravines must have existed before the time at which the valley was\noccupied by the great mere. This fact acquires a peculiar importance when\nwe proceed to consider the grounds for the conclusion that the old\nPalestinian mere attained its highest level in the cold period of the\npleistocene epoch. It is well known that glaciers formerly came low down on\nthe flanks of Lebanon and Antilebanon; indeed, the old moraines are the\nhaunts of the few survivors of the famous cedars. This implies a perennial\nsnowcap of great extent on Hermon; therefore, a vastly greater supply of\nwater to the sources of the Jordan which rise on its flanks; and, in\naddition, such a total change in the general climate, that the innumerable\nWadys, now traversed only by occasional storm torrents, must have been\noccupied by perennial streams. All this involves a lower annual temperature\nand a moist and rainy atmosphere. If such a change of meteorological\nconditions could be effected now, when the loss by evaporation from the\nsurface of the Dead Sea salt-pan balances all the gain from the Jordan and\nother streams, the scale would be turned in the other direction. The waters\nof the Dead Sea would become diluted; its level would rise; {614} it would\ncover, first the plain of the Jordan, then the lake of Galilee, then the\nmiddle Jordan between this lake and that of Huleh (the ancient Merom); and,\nfinally, it would encroach, northwards, along the course of the upper\nJordan, and, southwards, up the Wady Arabah, until it reached some 260 feet\nabove the level of the Mediterranean, when it would attain a permanent\nlevel, by sending any superfluity through the pass of Jezrael to swell the\nwaters of the Kishon, and flow thence into the Mediterranean.\n\nReverse the process, in consequence of the excess of loss by evaporation\nover gain by inflow, which must have set in as the climate of Syria changed\nafter the end of the pleistocene epoch, and (without taking into\nconsideration any other circumstances) the present state of things must\neventually be reached--a concentrated saline solution in the deepest part\nof the valley--water, rather more charged with saline matter than ordinary\nfresh water, in the lower Jordan and the lake of Galilee--fresh waters,\nstill largely derived from the snows of Hermon, in the upper Jordan and in\nLake Huleh. But, if the full state of Jordan valley marks the glacial\nepoch, then it follows that the excavation of that valley by atmospheric\nagencies must have occupied an immense antecedent time--a large part,\nperhaps the whole, of the pliocene epoch; and we are thus forced to the\nconclusion that, since the miocene epoch, the physical conformation of the\nHoly Land has been substantially what it is now. It has been more or less\nrained upon, searched by {615} earthquakes here and there, partially\noverflowed by lava streams, slowly raised (relatively to the sea-level) a\nfew hundred feet. But there is not a shadow of ground for supposing that,\nthroughout all this time, terrestrial animals have ceased to inhabit a\nlarge part of its surface; or that, in many parts, they have been, in any\nrespect, incommoded by the changes which have taken place.\n\nThe evidence of the general stability of the physical conditions of Western\nAsia, which is furnished by Palestine and by the Euphrates Valley, is only\nfortified if we extend our view northwards to the Black Sea and the\nCaspian. The Caspian is a sort of magnified replica of the Dead Sea. The\nbottom of the deepest part of this vast inland mere is 3000 feet below the\nlevel of the Mediterranean, while its surface is lower by 85 feet. At\npresent, it is separated, on the west, by wide spaces of dry land from the\nBlack Sea, which has the same height as the Mediterranean, and, on the\neast, from the Aral, 138 feet above that level. The waters of the Black\nSea, now in communication with the Mediterranean by the Dardanelles and the\nBosphorus, are salt, but become brackish northwards, where the rivers of\nthe steppes pour in a great volume of fresh water. Those of the shallower\nnorthern half of the Caspian are similarly affected by the Volga and the\nUral, while, in the shallow bays of the southern division, they become\nextremely saline in consequence of the intense evaporation. The Aral Sea,\nthough supplied by the Jaxartes and the Oxus, has brackish water. There is\nevidence {616} that, in the pliocene and pleistocene periods, to go no\nfarther back, the strait of the Dardanelles did not exist, and that the\nvast area, from the valley of the Danube to that of the Jaxartes, was\ncovered by brackish or, in some parts, fresh water to a height of at least\n200 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. At the present time, the\nwater-parting which separates the northern part of the basin of the Caspian\nfrom the vast plains traversed by the Tobol and the Obi, in their course to\nthe Arctic Ocean, appears to be less than 200 feet above the latter. It\nwould seem, therefore, to be very probable that, under the climatal\nconditions of part of the pleistocene period, the valley of the Obi played\nthe same part in relation to the Ponto-Aralian sea, as that of the Kishon\nmay have done to the great mere of the Jordan valley; and that the outflow\nformed the channel by which the well-known Arctic elements of the fauna of\nthe Caspian entered it. For the fossil remains imbedded in the strata\ncontinuously deposited in the Aralo-Caspian area, since the latter end of\nthe miocene epoch, show no sign that, from that time onward, it has ever\nbeen covered by sea water. Therefore, the supposition of a free inflow of\nthe Arctic Ocean, which at one time was generally received, as well as that\nof various hypothetical deluges from that quarter, must be seriously\nquestioned.\n\nThe Caspian and the Aral stand in somewhat the same relation to the vast\nbasin of dry land in which they lie, as the Dead Sea and the lake of\nGalilee to the Jordan valley. They are the remains of a vast, {617} mostly\nbrackish, mere, which has dried up in consequence of the excess of\nevaporation over supply, since the cold and damp climate of the pleistocene\nepoch gave place to the increasing dryness and great summer heats of\nCentral Asia in more modern times. The desiccation of the Aralo-Caspian\nbasin, which communicated with the Black Sea only by a comparatively narrow\nand shallow strait along the present valley of Manytsch, the bottom of\nwhich was less than 100 feet above the Mediterranean, must have been vastly\naided by the erosion of the strait of the Dardanelles towards the end of\nthe pleistocene epoch, or perhaps later. For the result of thus opening a\npassage for the waters of the Black Sea into the Mediterranean must have\nbeen the gradual lowering of its level to that of the latter sea. When this\nprocess had gone so far as to bring down the Black Sea water to within less\nthan a hundred feet of its present level, the strait of Manytsch ceased to\nexist; and the vast body of fresh water brought down by the Danube, the\nDnieper, the Don, and other South Russian rivers was cut off from the\nCaspian, and eventually delivered into the Mediterranean. Thus, there is as\nconclusive evidence as one can well hope to obtain in these matters, that,\nnorth of the Euphrates valley, the physical geography of an area as large\nas all Central Europe has remained essentially unchanged, from the miocene\nperiod down to our time; just as, to the west of the Euphrates valley,\nPalestine has exhibited a similar persistence of geographical type. To the\nsouth, the valley of the Nile {618} tells exactly the same story. The holes\nbored by miocene mollusks in the cliffs east and west of Cairo bear witness\nthat, in the miocene epoch, it contained an arm of the sea, the bottom of\nwhich has since been gradually filled up by the alluvium of the Nile, and\nelevated to its present position. But the higher parts of the Mokattam and\nof the desert about Ghizeh, have been dry land from that time to this. Too\nlittle is known of the geology of Persia, at present, to allow any positive\nconclusion to be enunciated. But, taking the name to indicate the whole\ncontinental mass of Iran, between the valleys of the Indus and the\nEuphrates, the supposition that its physical geography has remained\nunchanged for an immensely long period is hardly rash. The country is, in\nfact, an enormous basin, surrounded on all sides by a mountainous rim, and\nsubdivided within by ridges into plateaus and hollows, the bottom of the\ndeepest of which, in the province of Seistan, probably descends to the\nlevel of the Indian Ocean. These depressions are occupied by salt marshes\nand deserts, in which the waters of the streams which flow down the sides\nof the basin are now dissipated by evaporation. I am acquainted with no\nevidence that the present Iranian basin was ever occupied by the sea; but\nthe accumulations of gravel over a great extent of its surface indicate\nlong-continued water action. It is, therefore, a fair presumption that\nlarge lakes have covered much of its present deserts, and that they have\ndried up by the operation of the same changed climatal conditions as those\nwhich have {619} reduced the Caspian and the Dead Sea to their present\ndimensions.[181]\n\nThus it would seem that the Euphrates valley, the centre of the fabled\nNoachian deluge, is also the centre of a region covering some millions of\nsquare miles of the present continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa, in\nwhich all the facts, relevant to the argument, at present known, converge\nto the conclusion that, since the miocene epoch, the essential features of\nits physical geography have remained unchanged; that it has neither been\ndepressed below the sea, nor swept by diluvial waters since that time; and\nthat the Chaldean version of the legend of a flood in the Euphrates valley\nis, of all those which are extant, the only one which is even consistent\nwith probability, since it depicts a local inundation not more severe than\none which might be brought about by a concurrence of favourable conditions\nat the present day, and which might probably have been more easily effected\nwhen the Persian Gulf extended farther north. Hence, the recourse to the\n\"glacial epoch\" for some event which might colourably represent a flood,\ndistinctly asserted by the only authority for it to have occurred in\nhistorical times, is peculiarly unfortunate. Even a Welsh antiquarian might\nhesitate over the supposition that a tradition of the fate of Moel Tryfaen,\nin the glacial epoch, had furnished the basis of fact for a legend {620}\nwhich arose among people whose own experience abundantly supplied them with\nthe needful precedents. Moreover, if evidence of interchanges of land and\nsea are to be accepted as \"confirmations\" of Noah's deluge, there are\nplenty of sources for the tradition to be had much nearer than Wales.\n\nThe depression now filled by the Red Sea, for example, appears to be,\ngeologically, of very recent origin. The later deposits found on its\nshores, two or three hundred feet above the sea level, contain no remains\nolder than those of the present fauna; while, as I have already mentioned,\nthe valley of the adjacent delta of the Nile was a gulf of the sea in\nmiocene times. But there is not a particle of evidence that the change of\nrelative level which admitted the waters of the Indian Ocean between Arabia\nand Africa, took place any faster than that which is now going on in\nGreenland and Scandinavia, and which has left their inhabitants\nundisturbed. Even more remarkable changes were effected, towards the end\nof, or since, the glacial epoch, over the region now occupied by the\nLevantine Mediterranean and the AEgean Sea. The eastern coast region of Asia\nMinor, the western of Greece, and many of the intermediate islands, exhibit\nthick masses of stratified deposits of later tertiary age and of purely\nlacustrine characters; and it is remarkable that, on the south side of the\nisland of Crete, such masses present steep cliffs facing the sea, so that\nthe southern boundary of the lake in which they were formed must have been\nsituated where the sea now flows. Indeed, there are {621} valid reasons for\nthe supposition that the dry land once extended far to the west of the\npresent Levantine coast, and not improbably forced the Nile to seek an\noutlet to the north-east of its present delta--a possibility of no small\nimportance in relation to certain puzzling facts in the geographical\ndistribution of animals in this region. At any rate, continuous land joined\nAsia Minor with the Balkan peninsula; and its surface bore deep freshwater\nlakes, apparently disconnected with the Ponto-Aralian sea. This state of\nthings lasted long enough to allow of the formation of the thick lacustrine\nstrata to which I have referred. I am not aware that there is the smallest\nground for the assumption that the AEgean land was broken up in consequence\nof any of the \"catastrophes\" which are so commonly invoked.[182] For\nanything that appears to the contrary, the narrow, steep-sided, straits\nbetween the islands of the AEgean archipelago may have been originally\nbrought about by ordinary atmospheric and stream action; and then filled\nfrom the Mediterranean, during a slow submergence proceeding from the south\nnorthwards. The strait of the Dardanelles is bounded by undisturbed\npleistocene strata forty feet thick, through which, to all appearance, the\npresent passage has been quietly cut.\n\nThat Olympus and Ossa were torn asunder and the waters of the Thessalian\nbasin poured forth, is a very ancient notion, and an often cited\n\"confirmation\" of Deucalion's flood. It has not yet ceased to {622} be in\nvogue, apparently because those who entertain it are not aware that modern\ngeological investigation has conclusively proved that the gorge of the\nPeneus is as typical an example of a valley of erosion as any to be seen in\nAuvergne or in Colorado.[183]\n\nThus, in the immediate vicinity of the vast expanse of country which can be\nproved to have been untouched by any catastrophe before, during, and since\nthe \"glacial epoch,\" lie the great areas of the AEgean and the Red Sea, in\nwhich, during or since the glacial epoch, changes of the relative positions\nof land and sea have taken place, in comparison with which the submergence\nof Moel Tryfaen, with all Wales and Scotland to boot, does not come to\nmuch.\n\nWhat, then, is the relevancy of talk about the \"glacial epoch\" to the\nquestion of the historical veracity of the narrator of the story of the\nNoachian deluge? So far as my knowledge goes, there is not a particle of\nevidence that destructive inundations were more common over the general\nsurface of the earth in the glacial epoch than they have been before or\nsince. No doubt the fringe of an ice-covered region must be always liable\nto them; but, if we examine the records of such catastrophes in historical\ntimes, those produced in the deltas of great rivers, or in lowlands like\nHolland, by sudden floods, combined with gales of wind or with unusual\ntides, far excel all others.\n\nWith respect to such inundations as are the {623} consequences of\nearthquakes, and other slight movements of the crust of the earth, I have\nnever heard of anything to show that they were more frequent and severer in\nthe quaternary or tertiary epochs than they are now. In the discussion of\nthese, as of all other geological problems, the appeal to needless\ncatastrophes is born of that impatience of the slow and painful search\nafter sufficient causes in the ordinary course of nature which is a\ntemptation to all, though only energetic ignorance nowadays completely\nsuccumbs to it.\n\n    POSTSCRIPT.\n\n    My best thanks are due to Mr. Gladstone for his courteous withdrawal of\n    one of the statements to which I have thought it needful to take\n    exception. The familiarity with controversy, to which Mr. Gladstone\n    alludes, will have accustomed him to the misadventures which arise\n    when, as sometimes will happen in the heat of fence, the buttons come\n    off the foils. I trust that any scratch which he may have received will\n    heal as quickly as my own flesh wounds have done.\n\n\n\n    A contribution to the last number of this Review of a different order\n    would be left unnoticed, were it not that my silence would convert me\n    into an accessory to misrepresentations of a very grave character.\n    However, I shall restrict myself to the barest possible statement of\n    facts, leaving my readers to draw their own conclusions.\n\n    In an article entitled \"A Great Lesson,\" published in this Review for\n    September 1887:\n\n    (1) The Duke of Argyll says the \"overthrow of Darwin's speculations\"\n    (p. 301) concerning the origin of coral reefs, which he fancied had\n    taken place, had been received by men of science \"with a grudging\n    silence as far as public discussion is concerned\" (p. 301).\n\n    {624} The truth is that, as every one acquainted with the literature of\n    the subject was well aware, the views supposed to have effected this\n    overthrow had been fully and publicly discussed by Dana in the United\n    States; by Geikie, Green, and Prestwich in this country; by Lapparent\n    in France; and by Credner in Germany.\n\n    (2) The Duke of Argyll says \"that no serious reply has ever been\n    attempted\" (p. 305).\n\n    The truth is that the highest living authority on the subject,\n    Professor Dana, published a most weighty reply, two years before the\n    Duke of Argyll committed himself to this statement.\n\n    (3) The Duke of Argyll uses the preceding products of defective\n    knowledge, multiplied by excessive imagination, to illustrate the\n    manner in which \"certain accepted opinions\" established \"a sort of\n    Reign of Terror in their own behalf\" (p. 307).\n\n    The truth is that no plea, except that of total ignorance of the\n    literature of the subject, can excuse the errors cited, and that the\n    \"Reign of Terror\" is a purely subjective phenomenon.\n\n    (4) The letter in _Nature_ for the 17th of November 1887, to which I am\n    referred, contains neither substantiation, nor retractation, of\n    statements 1 and 2. Nevertheless, it repeats number 3. The Duke of\n    Argyll says of his article that it \"has done what I intended it to do.\n    It has called wide attention to the influence of mere authority in\n    establishing erroneous theories and in retarding the progress of\n    scientific truth.\"\n\n    (5) The Duke of Argyll illustrates the influence of his fictitious\n    \"Reign of Terror\" by the statement that Mr. John Murray \"was strongly\n    advised against the publication of his views in derogation of Darwin's\n    long-accepted theory of the coral islands, and was actually induced to\n    delay it for two years\" (p. 307). And in _Nature_ for the 17th November\n    1887, the Duke of Argyll states that he has seen a letter from Sir\n    Wyville Thomson in which he \"urged and almost insisted that Mr. Murray\n    should withdraw the reading of his papers on the subject from the Royal\n    Society of Edinburgh. This was in February 1877.\" The next paragraph,\n    however, contains the confession: \"No special reason was assigned.\" The\n    Duke of Argyll proceeds to give a speculative opinion that \"Sir Wyville\n    {625} dreaded some injury to the scientific reputation of the body of\n    which he was the chief.\" Truly, a very probable supposition; but as Sir\n    Wyville Thomson's tendencies were notoriously anti-Darwinian, it does\n    not appear to me to lend the slightest justification to the Duke of\n    Argyll's insinuation that the Darwinian \"terror\" influenced him.\n    However, the question was finally set at rest by a letter which\n    appeared in _Nature_ (29th of December 1887), in which the writer says\n    that:\n\n        talking with Sir Wyville about \"Murray's new theory,\" I asked what\n        objection he had to its being brought before the public? The answer\n        simply was: he considered that the grounds of the theory had not,\n        as yet, been sufficiently investigated or sufficiently\n        corroborated, and that therefore any immature, dogmatic publication\n        of it would do less than little service either to science or to the\n        author of the paper.\n\n    Sir Wyville Thomson was an intimate friend of mine, and I am glad to\n    have been afforded one more opportunity of clearing his character from\n    the aspersions which have been so recklessly cast upon his good sense\n    and his scientific honour.\n\n    (6) As to the \"overthrow\" of Darwin's theory, which, according to the\n    Duke of Argyll, was patent to every unprejudiced person four years ago,\n    I have recently become acquainted with a work, in which a really\n    competent authority,[184] thoroughly acquainted with all the new lights\n    which have been thrown upon the subject during the last ten years,\n    pronounces the judgment; firstly, that some of the facts brought\n    forward by Messrs. Murray and Guppy against Darwin's theory are not\n    facts; secondly, that the others are reconcilable with Darwin's theory;\n    and, thirdly, that the theories of Messrs. Murray and Guppy \"are\n    contradicted by a series of important facts\" (p. 13).\n\n    Perhaps I had better draw attention to the circumstance that Dr.\n    Langenbeck writes under shelter of the guns of the fortress of\n    Strassburg; and may therefore be presumed to be unaffected by those\n    dreams of a \"Reign of Terror\" which seem to disturb the peace of some\n    of us in these islands (April 1891).\n\n_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, EDINBURGH.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nMESSRS. MACMILLAN AND CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.\n\nBY THE SAME AUTHOR.\n\nLAY SERMONS, ADDRESSES, AND REVIEWS. 9th Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d.\n\nCRITIQUES AND ADDRESSES. 8vo. 10s. 6d.\n\n    _STANDARD_--\"The whole book is well worthy of the reputation of a\n    writer whom all, whether they agree or not with his views upon\n    education and Darwinism, will admit is one of our foremost thinkers.\"\n\n    _SCOTSMAN_--\"There is so much that is suggestive in the volume, so much\n    that is valuable in the way of scientific information, and so much that\n    is good in point of literary style, that the volume should be widely\n    and generally read.\"\n\nSCIENCE AND CULTURE, AND OTHER ESSAYS. 8vo. 10s. 6d.\n\n    _ACADEMY_--\"Some of these essays are among the most interesting of\n    Professor Huxley's contributions to the literature of science.\"\n\n    _WESTMINSTER REVIEW_--\"A most valuable contribution to literature, and\n    at the same time an excellent enunciation of the relation of learning\n    to science in general.\"\n\nSOCIAL DISEASES AND WORSE REMEDIES: LETTERS TO THE \"TIMES\" ON MR. BOOTH'S\nSCHEMES. With a Preface and Introductory Essay. 2d Edition. Crown 8vo.\nsewed. 1s. net.\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMESSRS. MACMILLAN AND CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.\n\nBY THE SAME AUTHOR.\n\nLESSONS IN ELEMENTARY PHYSIOLOGY. With Numerous Illustrations. New Edition.\nFoolscap 8vo. 4s. 6d.\n\n    _SPECTATOR_--\"A very useful little manual which should be received with\n    acclamation.\"\n\n    _MEDICAL PRESS_--\"It is an admirable illustration of how the greatest\n    masters of a science may teach its elements in the most simple manner.\"\n\n    _LANCET_--\"To intending medical students this work will prove of great\n    value.... We welcome this book then as a valuable addition to\n    elementary education.\"\n\nPHYSIOGRAPHY. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF NATURE. 13th Edition. Crown\n8vo. 6s.\n\n    _SATURDAY REVIEW_--\"Written in that attractive style which is\n    characteristic of a great natural history demonstrator, a style in\n    which clearness and precision of language are combined with a vivid\n    survey of the various objects touched upon.\"\n\n    _ACADEMY_--\"It would hardly be possible to place a more useful or\n    suggestive book in the hands of learners and teachers, or one that is\n    better calculated to make physiography a favourite subject in the\n    science schools.\"\n\nAMERICAN ADDRESSES. WITH A LECTURE ON THE STUDY OF BIOLOGY. 8vo. 6s. 6d.\n\n    _BRITISH QUARTERLY REVIEW_--\"This interesting and instructive volume\n    has all the clearness and the earnestness of honest conviction that\n    characterise the writings of its eminent author.\"\n\n    _SCOTSMAN_--\"These lectures are models of calm and dispassionate\n    treatment of the subject regarded as a question of history, and contain\n    the clearest exposition, as well as the best justification that has yet\n    appeared of the doctrine of evolution.\"\n\nSCIENCE PRIMER. INTRODUCTORY. 18mo. cloth. 1s.\n\n    _GUARDIAN_--\"It is distinguished by the perfect lucidity and excellent\n    literary style of which he is so great a master. The elementary\n    conception of nature and science of material and immaterial objects, of\n    mineral and living bodies are explained in the fewest and clearest\n    words.\"\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMESSRS. MACMILLAN AND CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.\n\nBy the BISHOP OF LONDON.\n\nTHE RELATIONS BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE. Bampton Lectures, 1884. 7th and\nCheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nBy REV. PROFESSOR SALMON.\n\nNON-MIRACULOUS CHRISTIANITY, and other Sermons. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nGNOSTICISM AND AGNOSTICISM, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.\n\nBy the AUTHOR OF \"ECCE HOMO.\"\n\nNATURAL RELIGION. By the author of \"Ecce Homo.\" 3rd Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s.\n\nBy PROFESSORS TAIT and BALFOUR STEWART.\n\nPARADOXICAL PHILOSOPHY: A Sequel to \"The Unseen Universe.\" Crown 8vo. 7s.\n6d.\n\nBy R. H. HUTTON.\n\nESSAYS ON SOME OF THE MODERN GUIDES OF ENGLISH THOUGHT IN MATTERS OF FAITH.\nGlobe 8vo. 6s.\n\nTHEOLOGICAL ESSAYS. Globe 8vo. 6s.\n\nBy REV. T. W. FOWLE.\n\nA NEW ANALOGY BETWEEN REVEALED RELIGION AND THE COURSE AND CONSTITUTION OF\nNATURE. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nBy CANON CURTEIS.\n\nTHE SCIENTIFIC OBSTACLES TO CHRISTIAN BELIEF. The Boyle Lectures, 1884.\nCrown 8vo. 6s.\n\nBy PROF. CALDERWOOD.\n\nTHE RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION. Crown 8vo. 5s.\n\nBy the late PROFESSOR BIRKS.\n\nTHE DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION AND THE FALL,\nREDEMPTION, AND JUDGMENT. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s.\n\nSUPERNATURAL REVELATION: or, First Principles of Moral Theology. 8vo. 8s.\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMESSRS. MACMILLAN & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.\n\nWORKS BY DR. A. R. WALLACE.\n\nNew and Cheaper Edition. Extra Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nTHE MALAY ARCHIPELAGO: THE LAND OF THE ORANG UTAN AND THE BIRD OF PARADISE.\nA Narrative of Travel. With Studies of Man and Nature. By ALFRED RUSSELL\nWALLACE, LL.D., F.L.S., Author of \"Darwinism,\" etc. With Maps and\nIllustrations.\n\n    _GLASGOW HERALD_--\"There is probably no more interesting book of travel\n    in the language.... For one-and-twenty years it has held its place as a\n    monograph in a region of the East which is full of fascination, not\n    only for the naturalist and ethnographer, but for the ordinary reader\n    of travels.\"\n\nNew Edition. In one vol. Extra crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nCONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION: AND TROPICAL NATURE AND\nOTHER ESSAYS. By the same Author.\n\nNew and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nISLAND LIFE: OR, THE PHENOMENA AND CAUSES OF INSULAR FAUNAS AND FLORAS.\nIncluding a Revision and attempted solution of the problem of Geological\nClimates. By the same Author. With Illustrations and Maps.\n\nThird Edition. Crown 8vo. 9s.\n\nDARWINISM. An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection, with some of\nits Applications. By the same Author. Illustrated.\n\n    _SATURDAY REVIEW_--\"... Mr. Wallace's volume may be taken as a faithful\n    exposition of what Darwin meant. It is written with perfect clearness,\n    with a simple beauty and attractiveness of style not common to\n    scientific works, with a dignity and freedom from anything like\n    personal bitterness worthy of Darwin himself, and with an orderliness\n    and completeness that must render misconception impossible.\"\n\n    _ATHENAEUM_--\"Mr. Wallace adds so much that is new, and he writes in so\n    charming and simple a style, that his readers more than he are to be\n    congratulated on the latest service he has rendered to the science he\n    has served so well....\"\n\n    _SCOTSMAN_--\"... There can be only one opinion of the great mental\n    grasp and ingenuity, the lucidity of view, and the brilliancy of\n    exposition displayed by him in going over this immense and profound\n    field of inquiry.\"\n\n    _MANCHESTER EXAMINER_--\"A singularly useful and timely contribution to\n    the higher literature of popular science.... It has the weight and\n    interest which are given by unwearying research, patient investigation,\n    and shrewd vigorous thought.\"\n\n    _CAMBRIDGE REVIEW_--\"It is a work of the most admirable lucidity, and\n    it may be recommended as a charming one to the general reader. So many\n    new facts and arguments have been discovered since the publication of\n    the _Origin of Species_, that the work should also be studied by the\n    scientific specialist.... The final chapters on man are deeply\n    interesting.\"\n\nWORKS BY SIR JOHN LUBBOCK.\n\nCrown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nTHE ORIGIN AND METAMORPHOSES OF INSECTS. With Illustrations.\n\nCrown 8vo. 4s. 6d.\n\nON BRITISH WILD FLOWERS CONSIDERED IN THEIR RELATION TO INSECTS. With\nIllustrations.\n\nCrown 8vo. 4s. 6d.\n\nFLOWERS, FRUITS, AND LEAVES. With Illustrations.\n\nSecond Edition, revised. 8vo. 8s. 6d.\n\nSCIENTIFIC LECTURES. With Illustrations.\n\n8vo. 8s. 6d.\n\nPOLITICAL AND EDUCATIONAL ADDRESSES.\n\nGl. 8vo.\n\nTHE PLEASURES OF LIFE. New Edition. 1s. 6d.; sewed, 1s. 60th Thousand.\n_Library Edition._ Globe 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nPart II. Globe 8vo. 1s. 6d.; sewed, 1s. _Library Edition._ Globe 3s. 6d.\n\nTwo Parts in one vol. Gl. 8vo. 2s. 6d.\n\nCrown 8vo. 2s. 6d.\n\nFIFTY YEARS OF SCIENCE: Address to the British Association, 1881. 5th\nEdition.\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMESSRS. MACMILLAN & CO.'S SCIENTIFIC BOOKS.\n\nSOME VOLUMES OF \"NATURE\" SERIES.\n\n_Crown 8vo. Cloth._\n\nSEEING AND THINKING.\n\n    By Prof. W. K. CLIFFORD, F.R.S. Diagrams. 3s. 6d.\n\nCHARLES DARWIN.\n\n    Memorial Notices reprinted from \"Nature.\" By THOMAS H. HUXLEY, F.R.S.;\n    G. J. ROMANES, F.R.S.; ARCHIBALD GEIKIE, F.R.S.; and W. T. DYER, F.R.S.\n    2s. 6d.\n\nON THE COLOURS OF FLOWERS.\n\n    By GRANT ALLEN. Illustrated. 3s. 6d.\n\nTHE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION.\n\n    By GEORGE J. ROMANES, M.A., LL.D. 2s. 6d.\n\nPOPULAR LECTURES AND ADDRESSES.\n\n    By Lord KELVIN, P.R.S. In 3 vols. Vol. I. Constitution of Matter.\n    Illustrated. 7s. 6d. Vol. III. Navigation. 7s. 6d.\n\nARE THE EFFECTS OF USE AND DISUSE INHERITED? An Examination of the View\nheld by Spencer and Darwin.\n\n    By W. PLATT BALL. 3s. 6d.\n\nTHE RIGHT HAND: LEFT-HANDEDNESS.\n\n    By Sir D. WILSON. Illustrated. 4s. 6d.\n\nTHE APODIDAE: A MORPHOLOGICAL STUDY.\n\n    By HENRY MEYNERS BERNARD, M.A., Cantab. With 71 Illustrations. 7s. 6d.\n\n    _SCOTSMAN._--\"A book which zoologists will very greatly prize. The\n    writer has worked out the task he set before him with the greatest care\n    and in the most elaborate manner, and has presented the fruits of his\n    labour in a volume which every lover of scientific investigation will\n    thoroughly appreciate.... A valuable contribution to zoological\n    investigation.\"\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMESSRS. MACMILLAN AND CO.'S BOOKS\n\nON BIOLOGY, ANATOMY, AND PHYSIOLOGY.\n\nELEMENTARY BIOLOGY. By T. H. HUXLEY, F.R.S., and H. N. MARTIN, F.R.S. New\nEdition. Revised and extended by G. B. HOWES and D. H. SCOTT. Cr. 8vo. 10s.\n6d.\n\nAN ATLAS OF PRACTICAL ELEMENTARY BIOLOGY. By G. B. HOWES. With a Preface by\nT. H. HUXLEY, F.R.S. 4to. 14s.\n\nCOMPARATIVE EMBRYOLOGY (A Treatise on). By F. M. BALFOUR, M.A., F.R.S.\nIllustrated. In 2 Vols. Vol. I., 18s.; Vol. II., 21s.\n\nTHE ELEMENTS OF EMBRYOLOGY. By Professor M. FOSTER, M.D., F.R.S., and the\nlate FRANCIS M. BALFOUR, F.R.S. Third Edition, Revised. Edited by ADAM\nSEDGWICK, M.A., and WALTER HEAPE. 10s. 6d.\n\nA TEXT-BOOK OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY. By Dr. ARNOLD LANG, Professor of\nZoology in the University of Zurich, formerly Ritter Professor of Phylogeny\nin the University of Jena. With Preface to the English Translation by Prof.\nDr. ERNST HAECKEL, Director of the Zoological Institute in Jena. Translated\ninto English by HENRY M. BERNARD, M.A., Cantab., and MATILDA BERNARD. Part\nI. 8vo. 17s. net.\n\nTEXT-BOOK OF PHYSIOLOGY. By Professor MICHAEL FOSTER, M.D., F.R.S. With\nIllustrations. Sixth Edition, largely revised. In Four Parts. 8vo. Parts I.\nand II., 10s. 6d. each. Part III., 7s. 6d. Part IV., 10s. 6d.\n\nPRACTICAL PHYSIOLOGY AND HISTOLOGY: An Elementary Course. By Professor M.\nFOSTER, F.R.S., and J. N. LANGLEY, F.R.S., Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d.\n\nZOOTOMY (Vertebrata): A Course of Instruction in. By Professor T. J.\nPARKER. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.\n\nELEMENTARY LESSONS IN ANATOMY. By ST. GEORGE MIVART, F.R.S. With 400\nIllustrations. 18mo. 6s. 6d.\n\nELEMENTS OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY OF VERTEBRATES. Adapted from the German of\nROBERT WIEDERSHEIM. By Professor W. N. PARKER. With 270 Illustrations. 8vo.\n12s. 6d.\n\nTHE OSTEOLOGY OF THE MAMMALIA (An Introduction to). By WILLIAM HENRY\nFOWLER, LL.D., F.R.S. Third Edition. Revised with the assistance of HANS\nGADOW, Ph.D., M.A. 10s. 6d.\n\nTHE MYOLOGY OF THE RAVEN (_Corvus corax sinuatus_). A Guide to the Study of\nthe Muscular System in Birds. By R. W. SHUFELDT. Illustrated. 8vo. 13s.\nnet.\n\nELEMENTARY PRACTICAL HISTOLOGY. By WILLIAM FEARNLEY. With Illustrations.\nCrown 8vo. 7s. 6d.\n\nLESSONS IN ELEMENTARY BIOLOGY. By Professor T. JEFFREY PARKER, B.Sc.,\nF.R.S. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.\n\nDISEASES OF FIELD AND GARDEN CROPS, chiefly such as are caused by Fungi. By\nWORTHINGTON G. SMITH, F.L.S. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. 6d.\n\nTIMBER AND SOME OF ITS DISEASES. By H. MARSHALL WARD, F.R.S., Professor of\nBotany, Royal Indian Engineering College, Cooper's Hill. Crown 8vo. 6s.\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nNotes\n\n[1] With a few exceptions, which are duly noted when they amount to more\nthan verbal corrections.\n\n[2] _Declaration on the Truth of Holy Scripture_. The _Times_, 18th\nDecember 1891.\n\n[3] _Declaration_, Article 10.\n\n[4] Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi ecclesiae Catholicae me commoveret\nauctoritas.--_Contra Epistolam Manichaei_, cap. v.\n\n[5] I employ the words \"Supernature\" and \"Supernatural\" in their popular\nsenses. For myself, I am bound to say that the term \"Nature\" covers the\ntotality of that which is. The world of psychical phenomena appears to me\nto be as much part of \"Nature\" as the world of physical phenomena; and I am\nunable to perceive any justification for cutting the Universe into two\nhalves, one natural and one supernatural.\n\n[6] The general reader will find an admirably clear and concise statement\nof the evidence in this case, in Professor Flower's recently published work\n_The Horse: a Study in Natural History_.\n\n[7] \"The School Boards: What they can do and what they may do,\" 1870.\n_Critiques and Addresses_, p. 51.\n\n[8] _De Solido intra Solidum_, p. 5.--\"Dato corpore certa figura praedito et\njuxta leges naturae producto, in ipso corpore argumenta invenire locum et\nmodum productionis detegentia.\"\n\n[9] \"Corpora sibi invicem omnino similia simili etiam modo producta sunt.\"\n\n[10] [Sir J. D. Hooker.]\n\n[11] _The Nineteenth Century._\n\n[12] Earlier, if more recent announcements are correct.\n\n[13] It may be objected that I have not put the case fairly, inasmuch as\nthe solitary insect's wing which was discovered twelve months ago in\nSilurian rocks, and which is, at present, the sole evidence of insects\nolder than the Devonian epoch, came from strata of Middle Silurian age, and\nis therefore older than the scorpions which, within the last two years,\nhave been found in Upper Silurian strata in Sweden, Britain, and the United\nStates. But no one who comprehends the nature of the evidence afforded by\nfossil remains would venture to say that the non-discovery of scorpions in\nthe Middle Silurian strata, up to this time, affords any more ground for\nsupposing that they did not exist, than the non-discovery of flying insects\nin the Upper Silurian strata, up to this time, throws any doubt on the\ncertainty that they existed, which is derived from the occurrence of the\nwing in the Middle Silurian. In fact, I have stretched a point in admitting\nthat these fossils afford a colourable pretext for the assumption that the\nland and air-population were of contemporaneous origin.\n\n[14] _The Nineteenth Century_, 1886.\n\n[15] Both dolphins and dugongs occur in the Red Sea, porpoises and dolphins\nin the Mediterranean; so that the \"Mosaic writer\" may well have been\nacquainted with them.\n\n[16] I said nothing about \"the greater number of schools of Greek\nphilosophy,\" as Mr. Gladstone implies that I did, but expressly spoke of\nthe \"founders of Greek philosophy.\"\n\n[17] See Heinze, _Die Lehre vom Logos_, p. 9 _et seq._\n\n[18] Reprinted in _Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews_, 1870.\n\n[19] \"Ancient,\" doubtless, but his antiquity must not be exaggerated. For\nexample, there is no proof that the \"Mosaic\" cosmogony was known to the\nIsraelites of Solomon's time.\n\n[20] When Jeremiah (iv. 23) says, \"I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was\nwaste and void,\" he certainly does not mean to imply that the form of the\nearth was less definite, or its substance less solid, than before.\n\n[21] In looking through the delightful volume recently published by the\nAstronomer Royal for Ireland, a day or two ago, I find the following\nremarks on the nebular hypothesis, which I should have been glad to quote\nin my text if I had known them sooner:--\n\n\"Nor can it be ever more than a speculation; it cannot be established by\nobservation, nor can it be proved by calculation. It is merely a\nconjecture, more or less plausible, but perhaps, in some degree,\nnecessarily true, if our present laws of heat, as we understand them, admit\nof the extreme application here required, and if the present order of\nthings has reigned for sufficient time without the intervention of any\ninfluence at present known to us\" (_The Story of the Heavens_, p. 506).\n\nWould any prudent advocate base a plea, either for or against revelation,\nupon the coincidence, or want of coincidence, of the declarations of the\nlatter with the requirements of an hypothesis thus guardedly dealt with by\nan astronomical expert?\n\n[22] Lectures on Evolution delivered in New York (American Addresses).\n\n[23] Reuss, _L'Histoire Sainte et la Loi_, vol. i. p. 275.\n\n[24] For the sense of the term \"Elohim,\" see p. 141.\n\n[25] Perhaps even hippopotamuses and otters!\n\n[26] Even the most sturdy believers in the popular theory that the proper\nor titular names attached to the books of the Bible are those of their\nauthors will hardly be prepared to maintain that Jephthah, Gideon, and\ntheir colleagues wrote the book of Judges. Nor is it easily admissible that\nSamuel wrote the two books which pass under his name, one of which deals\nentirely with events which took place after his death. In fact, no one\nknows who wrote either Judges or Samuel, nor when, within the range of 100\nyears, their present form was given to these books.\n\n[27] My citations are taken from the Revised Version, but for LORD and GOD\nI have substituted Jahveh and Elohim.\n\n[28] I need hardly say that I depend upon authoritative Biblical critics,\nwhenever a question of interpretation of the text arises. As Reuss appears\nto me to be one of the most learned, acute, and fair-minded of those whose\nworks I have studied, I have made most use of the commentary and\ndissertations in his splendid French edition of the Bible. But I have also\nhad recourse to the works of Dillman, Kalisch, Kuenen, Thenius, Tuch, and\nothers, in cases in which another opinion seemed desirable.\n\n[29] See \"Divination,\" by Hazoral, _Journal of Anthropology_, Bombay, vol.\ni. No. 1.\n\n[30] See, for example, the message of Jephthah to the King of the\nAmmonites: \"So now Jahveh, the Elohim of Israel, hath dispossessed the\nAmorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess them?\nWilt not thou possess that which Chemosh, thy Elohim, giveth thee to\npossess?\" (Jud. xi. 23, 24). For Jephthah, Chemosh is obviously as real a\npersonage as Jahveh.\n\n[31] For example: \"My oblation, my food for my offerings made by fire, of a\nsweet savour to me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season\"\n(Num. xxviii. 2).\n\n[32] In 2 Samuel xv. 27 David says to Zadok the priest, \"Art thou not a\nseer?\" and Gad is called David's seer.\n\n[33] This would at first appear to be inconsistent with the use of the word\n\"prophetess\" for Deborah. But it does not follow because the writer of\nJudges applies the name to Deborah that it was used in her day.\n\n[34] Samuel tells the cook, \"Bring the portion which I gave thee, of which\nI said to thee, Set it by thee.\" It was therefore Samuel's to give. \"And\nthe cook took up the thigh (or shoulder) and that which was upon it and set\nit before Saul.\" But, in the Levitical regulations, it is the thigh (or\nshoulder) which becomes the priest's own property. \"And the right thigh (or\nshoulder) shall ye give unto the priest for an heave-offering,\" which is\ngiven along with the wave breast \"unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons\nas a due for ever from the children of Israel\" (Lev. vii. 31-34). Reuss\nwrites on this passage: \"La cuisse n'est point agitee, mais simplement\n_prelevee_ sur ce que les convives mangeront.\"\n\n[35] See, for example, Elkanah's sacrifice, 1 Sam. i. 3-9.\n\n[36] The ghost was not supposed to be capable of devouring the gross\nmaterial substance of the offering; but his vaporous body appropriated the\nsmoke of the burnt sacrifice, the visible and odorous exhalations of other\nofferings. The blood of the victim was particularly useful because it was\nthought to be the special seat of its soul or life. A West African negro\nreplied to an European sceptic: \"Of course, the spirit cannot eat corporeal\nfood, but he extracts its spiritual part, and, as we see, leaves the\nmaterial part behind\" (Lippert, _Seelencult_, p. 16).\n\n[37] It is further well worth consideration whether indications of former\nancestor-worship are not to be found in the singular weight attached to the\nveneration of parents in the fourth commandment. It is the only positive\ncommandment, in addition to those respecting the Deity and that concerning\nthe Sabbath, and the penalties for infringing it were of the same\ncharacter. In China, a corresponding reverence for parents is part and\nparcel of ancestor-worship; so in ancient Rome and in Greece (where parents\nwere even called [Greek: deuteroi kai epigeoi theoi]). The fifth\ncommandment, as it stands, would be an excellent compromise between\nancestor-worship and monotheism. The larger hereditary share allotted by\nIsraelitic law to the eldest son reminds one of the privileges attached to\nprimogeniture in ancient Rome, which were closely connected with\nancestor-worship. There is a good deal to be said in favour of the\nspeculation that the ark of the covenant may have been a relic of\nancestor-worship; but that topic is too large to be dealt with incidentally\nin this place.\n\n[38] \"The Scientific Aspects of Positivism,\" _Fortnightly Review_, 1869,\nrepublished in _Lay Sermons_.\n\n[39] _Oeuvres de Bossuet_, ed. 1808, t. xxxv. p. 282.\n\n[40] I should like further to add the expression of my indebtedness to two\nworks by Herr Julius Lippert, _Der Seelencult in seinen Beziehungen zur\nalt-hebraischen Religion_, and _Die Religionen der europaeischen\nCulturvoelker_, both published in 1881. I have found them full of valuable\nsuggestions.\n\n[41] See among others the remarkable work of Fustel de Coulanges, _La cite\nantique_, in which the social importance of the old Roman ancestor-worship\nis brought out with great clearness.\n\n[42] Supposed to be \"the finer or more aeriform part of the body,\" standing\nin \"the same relation to the body as the perfume and the more essential\nqualities of a flower do to the more solid substances\" (Mariner, vol. ii.\np. 127).\n\n[43] A kind of \"clients\" in the Roman sense.\n\n[44] It is worthy of remark that [Greek: daimon] among the Greeks, and\n_Deus_ among the Romans, had the same wide signification. The _dii manes_\nwere ghosts of ancestors = Atuas of the family.\n\n[45] _Voyages aux iles du Grand Ocean_, t. i. p. 482.\n\n[46] _Te Ika a Maui: New Zealand and its Inhabitants_, p. 72.\n\n[47] Compare: \"And Samuel said unto Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me?\" (1\nSam. xxviii. 15).\n\n[48] Turner, _Nineteen Years in Polynesia_, p. 238.\n\n[49] See Lippert's excellent remarks on this subject, _Der Seelencult_, p.\n89.\n\n[50] _Sciography_ has the authority of Cudworth, _Intellectual System_,\nvol. ii. p. 836. Sciomancy ([Greek: skiomanteia]), which, in the sense of\ndivination by ghosts, may be found in Bailey's _Dictionary_ (1751), also\nfurnishes a precedent for my coinage.\n\n[51] \"Kami\" is used in the sense of Elohim; and is also, like our word\n\"Lord,\" employed as a title of respect among men, as indeed Elohim was.\n\n[52] [The Assyrians thus raised Assur to a position of pre-eminence.]\n\n[53] I refer those who wish to know the reasons which lead me to take up\nthis position to the works of Reuss and Wellhausen, [and especially to\nStade's _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_.]\n\n[54] Bunsen, _Egypt's Place_, vol. v. p. 129, note.\n\n[55] See Birch, in _Egypt's Place_, vol. v.; and Brugsch, _History of\nEgypt_.\n\n[56] Even by Graetz, who, though a fair enough historian, cannot be accused\nof any desire to over-estimate the importance of Egyptian influence upon\nhis people.\n\n[57] Graetz, _Geschichte der Juden_, Bd. i. p. 370.\n\n[58] See the careful analysis of the work of the Alexandrian philosopher\nand theologian (who, it should be remembered, was a most devout Jew, held\nin the highest esteem by his countrymen) in Siegfried's _Philo von\nAlexandrien_, 1875. [Also Dr. J. Drummond's _Philo Judaeus_, 1888.]\n\n[59] I am not unaware of the existence of many and widely divergent sects\nand schools among the Jews at all periods of their history, since the\ndispersion. But I imagine that orthodox Judaism is now pretty much what it\nwas in Philo's time; while Peter and Paul, if they could return to life,\nwould certainly have to learn the catechism of either the Roman, Greek, or\nAnglican Churches, if they desired to be considered orthodox Christians.\n\n[60] Dante's description of Lucifer engaged in the eternal mastication of\nBrutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot--\n\n \"Da ogni bocca dirompea co' denti\n    Un peccatore, a guisa di maciulla,\n    Si che tre ne facea cosi dolenti.\n  A quel dinanzi il mordere era nulla,\n    Verso 'l graffiar, che tal volta la schiena\n    Rimanea della pelle tutta brulla\"--\n\nis quite in harmony with the Pisan picture and perfectly Polynesian in\nconception.\n\n[61] See the famous _Collection of Papers_, published by Clarke in 1717.\nLeibnitz says: \"'Tis also a supernatural thing that bodies should _attract_\none another at a distance without any intermediate means.\" And Clarke, on\nbehalf of Newton, caps this as follows: \"That one body should attract\nanother without any intermediate _means_ is, indeed, not a _miracle_, but a\ncontradiction; for 'tis supposing something to act where it is not.\"\n\n[62] I may cite in support of this obvious conclusion of sound reasoning,\ntwo authorities who will certainly not be regarded lightly by Mr. Lilly.\nThese are Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The former declares that \"Fate\" is\nonly an ill-chosen name for Providence.\n\n\"Prorsus divina providentia regna constituuntur humana. Quae si propterea\nquisquam fato tribuit, quia ipsam Dei voluntatem vel potestatem fati nomine\nappellat, _sententiam teneat, linguam corrigat_\" (Augustinus _De Civitate\nDei_, V. c. i.)\n\nThe other great doctor of the Catholic Church, \"Divus Thomas,\" as Suarez\ncalls him, whose marvellous grasp and subtlety of intellect seem to me to\nbe almost without a parallel, puts the whole case into a nutshell, when he\nsays that the ground for doing a thing in the mind of the doer is as it\nwere the pre-existence of the thing done:\n\n\"Ratio autem alicujus fiendi in mente actoris existens est quaedam\nprae-existentia rei fiendae in eo\" (_Summa_, Qu. xxiii. Art. i.)\n\nIf this is not enough, I may further ask what \"Materialist\" has ever given\na better statement of the case for determinism, on theistic grounds, than\nis to be found in the following passage of the _Summa_, Qu. xiv. Art. xiii.\n\n\"Omnia quae sunt in tempore, sunt Deo ab aeterno praesentia, non solum ea ex\nratione qua habet rationes rerum apud se presentes, ut quidam dicunt, sed\nquia ejus intuitus fertur ab aeterno supra omnia, prout sunt in sua\npraesentialitate. _Unde manifestum est quod contingentia infallibiliter a\nDeo cognoscuntur_, in quantum subduntur divino conspectui secundum suam\npraesentialitatem; et tamen sunt futura contingentia, suis causis proximis\ncomparata.\"\n\n[As I have not said that Thomas Aquinas is professedly a determinist, I do\nnot see the bearing of citations from him which may be more or less\ninconsistent with the foregoing.]\n\n[63] There is no exaggeration in this brief and summary view of the\nCatholic cosmos. But it would be unfair to leave it to be supposed that the\nReformation made any essential alteration, except perhaps for the worse, in\nthat cosmology which called itself \"Christian.\" The protagonist of the\nReformation, from whom the whole of the Evangelical sects are lineally\ndescended, states the case with that plainness of speech, not to say\nbrutality, which characterised him. Luther says that man is a beast of\nburden who only moves as his rider orders; sometimes God rides him, and\nsometimes Satan. \"Sic voluntas humana in medio posita est, ceu jumentum; si\ninsederit Deus, vult et vadit, quo vult Deus.... Si insederit Satan, vult\net vadit, quo vult Satan; nec est in ejus arbitrio ad utrum sessorem\ncurrere, aut eum quaerere, sed ipsi sessores certant ob ipsum obtinendum et\npossidendum\" (_De Servo Arbitrio_, M. Lutheri Opera, ed. 1546, t. ii. p.\n468). One may hear substantially the same doctrine preached in the parks\nand at street-corners by zealous volunteer missionaries of Evangelicism,\nany Sunday, in modern London. Why these doctrines, which are conspicuous by\ntheir absence in the four Gospels, should arrogate to themselves the title\nof Evangelical, in contradistinction to Catholic, Christianity, may well\nperplex the impartial inquirer, who, if he were obliged to choose between\nthe two, might naturally prefer that which leaves the poor beast of burden\na little freedom of choice.\n\n[64] I say \"so-called\" not by way of offence, but as a protest against the\nmonstrous assumption that Catholic Christianity is explicitly or implicitly\ncontained in any trustworthy record of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.\n\n[65] It may be desirable to observe that, in modern times, the term\n\"Realism\" has acquired a signification wholly different from that which\nattached to it in the middle ages. We commonly use it as the contrary of\nIdealism. The Idealist holds that the phenomenal world has only a\nsubjective existence, the Realist that it has an objective existence. I am\nnot aware that any mediaeval philosopher was an Idealist in the sense in\nwhich we apply the term to Berkeley. In fact, the cardinal defect of their\nspeculations lies in their oversight of the considerations which lead to\nIdealism. If many of them regarded the material world as a negation, it was\nan active negation; not zero, but a minus quantity.\n\n[66] At any rate a catastrophe greater than the flood, which, as I observe\nwith interest, is as calmly assumed by the preacher to be an historical\nevent as if science had never had a word to say on that subject!\n\n[67] \"Les formes des anciens ou Entelechies ne sont autre chose que les\nforces\" (Leibnitz, _Lettre au Pere Bouvet_, 1697).\n\n[68] _Nineteenth Century_, March 1887.\n\n[69] The Duke of Argyll speaks of the recent date of the demonstration of\nthe fallacy of the doctrine in question. \"Recent\" is a relative term, but I\nmay mention that the question is fully discussed in my book on \"Hume\";\nwhich, if I may believe my publishers, has been read by a good many people\nsince it appeared in 1879. Moreover, I observe, from a note at page 89 of\n_The Reign of Law_, a work to which I shall have occasion to advert by and\nby, that the Duke of Argyll draws attention to the circumstance that, so\nlong ago as 1866, the views which I hold on this subject were well known.\nThe Duke, in fact, writing about this time, says, after quoting a phrase of\nmine: \"The question of miracles seems now to be admitted on all hands to be\nsimply a question of evidence.\" In science we think that a teacher who\nignores views which have been discussed _coram populo_ for twenty years, is\nhardly up to the mark.\n\n[70] See also vol. i. p. 460. In the ninth edition (1853), published\ntwenty-three years after the first, Lyell deprives even the most careless\nreader of any excuse for misunderstanding him: \"So in regard to\nsubterranean movements, the theory of the perpetual uniformity of the force\nwhich they exert on the earth-crust is quite consistent with the admission\nof their alternate development and suspension for indefinite periods within\nlimited geographical areas\" (p. 187).\n\n[71] A great many years ago (Presidential Address to the Geological\nSociety, 1869) I ventured to indicate that which seemed to me to be the\nweak point, not in the fundamental principles of uniformitarianism, but in\nuniformitarianism as taught by Lyell. It lay, to my mind, in the refusal by\nHutton, and in a less degree by Lyell, to look beyond the limits of the\ntime recorded by the stratified rocks. I said: \"This attempt to limit, at a\nparticular point, the progress of inductive and deductive reasoning from\nthe things which are to the things which were--this faithlessness to its\nown logic, seems to me to have cost uniformitarianism the place as the\npermanent form of geological speculation which it might otherwise have\nheld\" (_Lay Sermons_, p. 260). The context shows that \"uniformitarianism\"\nhere means that doctrine, as limited in application by Hutton and Lyell,\nand that what I mean by \"evolutionism\" is consistent and thoroughgoing\nuniformitarianism.\n\n[72] _Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences_, vol. i. p. 670. New edition,\n1847.\n\n[73] At Glasgow in 1856.\n\n[74] _Optics_, query 31.\n\n[75] The author recognises this in his _Explanations_.\n\n[76] \"The Advance of Science.\" Three sermons preached in Manchester\nCathedral on Sunday, September 4, 1887, during the meeting of the British\nAssociation for the Advancement of Science, by the Bishop of Carlisle, the\nBishop of Bedford, and the Bishop of Manchester.\n\n[77] _American Journal of Science_, 1885, p. 190.\n\n[78] Professor Geikie, however, though a strong, is a fair and candid\nadvocate. He says of Darwin's theory, \"That it may be possibly true, in\nsome instances, may be readily granted.\" For Professor Geikie, then, it is\nnot yet overthrown--still less a dream.\n\n[79] I find, moreover, that I specially warned my readers against hasty\njudgment. After stating the facts of observation, I add, \"I have, hitherto,\nsaid nothing about their meaning, as, in an inquiry so difficult and\nfraught with interest as this, it seems to me to be in the highest degree\nimportant to keep the questions of fact and the questions of interpretation\nwell apart\" (p. 210).\n\n[80] See the _Official Report of the Church Congress held at Manchester_,\nOctober 1888, pp. 253, 254.\n\n[81] [In this place and in the eleventh essay, there are references to the\nlate Archbishop of York which are of no importance to my main argument, and\nwhich I have expunged because I desire to obliterate the traces of a\ntemporary misunderstanding with a man of rare ability, candour, and wit,\nfor whom I entertained a great liking and no less respect. I rejoice to\nthink now of the (then) Bishop's cordial hail the first time we met after\nour little 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[82] Dr. Wace tells us, \"It may be asked how far we can rely on the\naccounts we possess of our Lord's teaching on these subjects.\" And he seems\nto think the question appropriately answered by the assertion that it\n\"ought to be regarded as settled by M. Renan's practical surrender of the\nadverse case.\" I thought I knew M. Renan's works pretty well, but I have\ncontrived to miss this \"practical\" (I wish Dr. Wace had defined the scope\nof that useful adjective) surrender. However, as Dr. Wace can find no\ndifficulty in pointing out the passage of M. Renan's writings, by which he\nfeels justified in making his statement, I shall wait for further\nenlightenment, contenting myself, for the present, with remarking that if\nM. Renan were to retract and do penance in Notre-Dame to-morrow for any\ncontributions to Biblical criticism that may be specially his property, the\nmain results of that criticism, as they are set forth in the works of\nStrauss, Baur, Reuss, and Volkmar, for example, would not be sensibly\naffected.\n\n[83] [See De Gobineau, _Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l'Asie\nCentrale_; and the recently published work of Mr. E. G. Browne, _The\nEpisode of the Bab_.]\n\n[84] Here, as always, the revised version is cited.\n\n[85] Does any one really mean to say that there is any internal or external\ncriterion by which the reader of a biblical statement, in which scientific\nmatter is contained, is enabled to judge whether it is to be taken _au\nserieux_ or not? Is the account of the Deluge, accepted as true in the New\nTestament, less precise and specific than that of the call of Abraham, also\naccepted as true therein? By what mark does the story of the feeding with\nmanna in the wilderness, which involves some very curious scientific\nproblems, show that it is meant merely for edification, while the story of\nthe inscription of the Law on stone by the hand of Jahveh is literally\ntrue? If the story of the Fall is not the true record of an historical\noccurrence, what becomes of Pauline theology? Yet the story of the Fall as\ndirectly conflicts with probability, and is as devoid of trustworthy\nevidence, as that of the Creation or that of the Deluge, with which it\nforms an harmoniously legendary series.\n\n[86] See, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, Dr. Abbott's\narticle on the Gospels in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_; and the remarkable\nmonograph by Professor Volkmar, _Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche\nZeit_ (1882). Whether we agree with the conclusions of these writers or\nnot, the method of critical investigation which they adopt is\nunimpeachable.\n\n[87] Notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind the hedge of\nanonymity by a writer in a recent number of the _Quarterly Review_, I\nrepeat, without the slightest fear of refutation, that the four Gospels, as\nthey have come to us, are the work of unknown writers.\n\n[88] Their arguments, in the long run, are always reducible to one form.\nOtherwise trustworthy witnesses affirm that such and such events took\nplace. These events are inexplicable, except the agency of \"spirits\" is\nadmitted. Therefore \"spirits\" were the cause of the phenomena.\n\nAnd the heads of the reply are always the same. Remember Goethe's aphorism:\n\"Alles factische ist schon Theorie.\" Trustworthy witnesses are constantly\ndeceived, or deceive themselves, in their interpretation of sensible\nphenomena. No one can prove that the sensible phenomena, in these cases,\ncould be caused only by the agency of spirits: and there is abundant ground\nfor believing that they may be produced in other ways. Therefore, the\nutmost that can be reasonably asked for, on the evidence as it stands, is\nsuspension of judgment. And, on the necessity for even that suspension,\nreasonable men may differ, according to their views of probability.\n\n[89] Yet I must somehow have laid hold of the pith of the matter, for, many\nyears afterwards, when Dean Mansell's Bampton lectures were published, it\nseemed to me I already knew all that this eminently agnostic thinker had to\ntell me.\n\n[90] _Kritik der reinen Vernunft_. Edit. Hartenstein, p. 256.\n\n[91] _Report of the Church Congress_, Manchester, 1888, p. 252.\n\n[92] _Fortnightly Review_, Jan. 1889.\n\n[93] My citations are made from Teulet's _Einhardi omnia quae extant opera_,\nParis, 1840-1843, which contains a biography of the author, a history of\nthe text, with translations into French, and many valuable annotations.\n\n[94] At present included in the Duchies of Hesse-Darmstadt and Baden.\n\n[95] This took place in the year 826 A.D. The relics were brought from Rome\nand deposited in the Church of St. Medardus at Soissons.\n\n[96] Now included in Western Switzerland.\n\n[97] Probably, according to Teulet, the present Sandhofer-fahrt, a little\nbelow the embouchure of the Neckar.\n\n[98] The present Michilstadt, thirty miles N.E. of Heidelberg.\n\n[99] In the Middle Ages one of the most favourite accusations against\nwitches was that they committed just these enormities.\n\n[100] It is pretty clear that Eginhard had his doubts about the deacon,\nwhose pledges he qualifies as _sponsiones incertae_. But, to be sure, he\nwrote after events which fully justified scepticism.\n\n[101] The words are _scrinia sine clave_, which seems to mean \"having no\nkey.\" But the circumstances forbid the idea of breaking open.\n\n[102] Eginhard speaks with lofty contempt of the \"vana ac superstitiosa\npraesumptio\" of the poor woman's companions in trying to alleviate her\nsufferings with \"herbs and frivolous incantations.\" Vain enough, no doubt,\nbut the \"mulierculae\" might have returned the epithet \"superstitious\" with\ninterest.\n\n[103] Of course there is nothing new in this argument; but it does not grow\nweaker by age. And the case of Eginhard is far more instructive than that\nof Augustine, because the former has so very frankly, though incidentally,\nrevealed to us not only his own mental and moral habits, but those of the\npeople about him.\n\n[104] See 1 Cor. xii. 10-28; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Rom. xv. 19.\n\n[105] _A Journal or Historical Account of the Life, Travels, Sufferings,\nand Christian Experiences, &c., of George Fox_. Ed. 1694, pp. 27, 28.\n\n[106] I may perhaps return to the question of the authorship of the\nGospels. For the present I must content myself with warning my readers\nagainst any reliance upon Dr. Wace's statements as to the results arrived\nat by modern criticism. They are as gravely as surprisingly erroneous.\n\n[107] The United States ought, perhaps, to be added, but I am not sure.\n\n[108] Imagine that all our chairs of Astronomy had been founded in the\nfourteenth century, and that their incumbents were bound to sign Ptolemaic\narticles. In that case, with every respect for the efforts of persons thus\nhampered to attain and expound the truth, I think men of common sense would\ngo elsewhere to learn astronomy. Zeller's _Vortraege und Abhandlungen_ were\npublished and came into my hands a quarter of a century ago. The writer's\nrank, as a theologian to begin with, and subsequently as a historian of\nGreek philosophy, is of the highest. Among these essays are two--_Das\nUrchristenthum_ and _Die Tuebinger historische Schule_--which are likely to\nbe of more use to those who wish to know the real state of the case than\nall that the official \"apologists,\" with their one eye on truth and the\nother on the tenets of their sect, have written. For the opinion of a\nscientific theologian about theologians of this stamp see pp. 225 and 227\nof the _Vortraege_.\n\n[109] I suppose this is what Dr. Wace is thinking about when he says that I\nallege that there \"is no visible escape\" from the supposition of an\n_Ur-Marcus_ (p. 367). That a \"theologian of repute\" should confound an\nindisputable fact with one of the modes of explaining that fact is not so\nsingular as those who are unaccustomed to the ways of theologians might\nimagine.\n\n[110] Any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a case of\n\"copying\" will be particularly well prepared to appreciate the force of the\ncase stated in that most excellent little book, _The Common Tradition of\nthe Synoptic Gospels_, by Dr. Abbott and Mr. Rushbrooke (Macmillan, 1884).\nTo those who have not passed through such painful experiences I may\nrecommend the brief discussion of the genuineness of the \"Casket Letters\"\nin my friend Mr. Skelton's interesting book, _Maitland of Lethington_. The\nsecond edition of Holtzmann's _Lehrbuch_, published in 1886, gives a\nremarkably fair and full account of the present results of criticism. At p.\n366 he writes that the present burning question is whether the \"relatively\nprimitive narrative and the root of the other synoptic texts is contained\nin Matthew or in Mark. It is only on this point that properly-informed\n(_sachkundige_) critics differ,\" and he decides in favour of Mark.\n\n[111] Holtzmann (_Die synoptischen Evangelien_, 1863, p. 75), following\nEwald, argues that the \"Source A\" ( = the threefold tradition, more or\nless) contained something that answered to the \"Sermon on the Plain\"\nimmediately after the words of our present Mark, \"And he cometh into a\nhouse\" (iii. 19). But what conceivable motive could \"Mark\" have for\nomitting it? Holtzmann has no doubt, however, that the \"Sermon on the\nMount\" is a compilation, or, as he calls it in his recently-published\n_Lehrbuch_ (p. 372), \"an artificial mosaic work.\"\n\n[112] See Schuerer, _Geschichte des juedischen Volkes_, Zweiter Theil, p.\n384.\n\n[113] Spacious, because a young man could sit in it \"on the right side\"\n(xv. 5), and therefore with plenty of room to spare.\n\n[114] King Herod had not the least difficulty in supposing the resurrection\nof John the Baptist--\"John, whom I beheaded, he is risen\" (Mark vi. 16).\n\n[115] I am very sorry for the interpolated \"in,\" because citation ought to\nbe accurate in small things as in great. But what difference it makes\nwhether one \"believes Jesus\" or \"believes in Jesus\" much thought has not\nenabled me to discover. If you \"believe him\" you must believe him to be\nwhat he professed to be--that is, \"believe in him;\" and if you \"believe in\nhim\" you must necessarily \"believe him.\"\n\n[116] True for Justin: but there is a school of theological critics, who\nmore or less question the historical reality of Paul and the genuineness of\neven the four cardinal epistles.\n\n[117] See _Dial. cum Tryphone_, Sec. 47 and Sec. 35. It is to be understood that\nJustin does not arrange these categories in order, as I have done.\n\n[118] I guard myself against being supposed to affirm that even the four\ncardinal epistles of Paul may not have been seriously tampered with. See\nnote 116, p. 429 above.\n\n[119] [Paul, in fact, is required to commit in Jerusalem, an act of the\nsame character as that which he brands as \"dissimulation\" on the part of\nPeter in Antioch.]\n\n[120] All this was quite clearly pointed out by Ritschl nearly forty years\nago. See _Die Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_ (1850), p. 108.\n\n[121] \"If every one was baptized as soon as he acknowledged Jesus to be the\nMessiah, the first Christians can have been aware of no other essential\ndifferences from the Jews.\"--Zeller, _Vortraege_ (1865), p. 26.\n\n[122] 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[123] The substance of a paragraph which precedes this has been transferred\nto the Prologue.\n\n[124] \"Let us maintain, before we have proved. This seeming paradox is the\nsecret of happiness\" (Dr. Newman: Tract 85, p. 85).\n\n[125] Dr. Newman, _Essay on Development_, p. 357.\n\n[126] It is by no means to be assumed that \"spiritual\" and \"corporeal\" are\nexact equivalents of \"immaterial\" and \"material\" in the minds of ancient\nspeculators on these topics. The \"spiritual body\" of the risen dead (1 Cor.\nxv.) is not the \"natural\" \"flesh and blood\" body. Paul does not teach the\nresurrection of the body in the ordinary sense of the word \"body\"; a fact,\noften overlooked, but pregnant with many consequences.\n\n[127] Tertullian (_Apolog. adv. Gentes_, cap. xxiii.) thus challenges the\nRoman authorities: let them bring a possessed person into the presence of a\nChristian before their tribunal; and, if the demon does not confess himself\nto be such, on the order of the Christian, let the Christian be executed\nout of hand.\n\n[128] See the expression of orthodox opinion upon the \"accommodation\"\nsubterfuge already cited above, p. 336.\n\n[129] I quote the first edition (1843). A second edition appeared in 1870.\nTract 85 of the _Tracts for the Times_ should be read with this _Essay_. If\nI were called upon to compile a Primer of \"Infidelity,\" I think I should\nsave myself trouble by making a selection from these works, and from the\n_Essay on Development_ by the same author.\n\n[130] Yet, when it suits his purpose, as in the Introduction to the _Essay\non Development_, Dr. Newman can demand strict evidence in religious\nquestions as sharply as any \"infidel author\"; and he can even profess to\nyield to its force (_Essay on Miracles_, 1870, note, p. 391).\n\n[131] Compare Tract 85, p. 110: \"I am persuaded that were men but\nconsistent who oppose the Church doctrines as being unscriptural, they\nwould vindicate the Jews for rejecting the Gospel.\"\n\n[132] According to Dr. Newman, \"This prayer [that of Bishop Alexander, who\nbegged God to 'take Arius away'] is said to have been offered about 3 P.M.\non the Saturday; that same evening Arius was in the great square of\nConstantine, when he was suddenly seized with indisposition\" (p. clxx). The\n\"infidel\" Gibbon seems to have dared to suggest that \"an option between\npoison and miracle\" is presented by this case; and, it must be admitted,\nthat, if the Bishop had been within the reach of a modern police\nmagistrate, things might have gone hardly with him. Modern \"Infidels,\"\npossessed of a slight knowledge of chemistry, are not unlikely, with no\nless audacity, to suggest an \"option between fire-damp and miracle\" in\nseeking for the cause of the fiery outburst at Jerusalem.\n\n[133] A writer in a spiritualist journal takes me roundly to task for\nventuring to doubt the historical and literal truth of the Gadarene story.\nThe following passage in his letter is worth quotation: \"Now to the\nmaterialistic and scientific mind, to the uninitiated in spiritual\nverities, certainly this story of the Gadarene or Gergesene swine presents\ninsurmountable difficulties; it seems grotesque and nonsensical. To the\nexperienced, trained, and cultivated Spiritualist this miracle is, as I am\nprepared to show, one of the most instructive, the most profoundly useful,\nand the most beneficent which Jesus ever wrought in the whole course of His\npilgrimage of redemption on earth.\" Just so. And the first page of this\nsame journal presents the following advertisement, among others of the same\nkidney:--\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 his\nprivate ephod, teraphim, and Levite?\n\n[134] Consider Tertullian's \"sister\" (\"hodie apud nos\"), who conversed with\nangels, saw and heard mysteries, knew men's thoughts, and prescribed\nmedicine for their bodies (_De Anima_, cap. 9). Tertullian tells us that\nthis woman saw the soul as corporeal, and described its colour and shape.\nThe \"infidel\" will probably be unable to refrain from insulting the memory\nof the ecstatic saint by the remark, that Tertullian's known views about\nthe corporeality of the soul may have had something to do with the\nremarkable perceptive powers of the Montanist medium, in whose revelations\nof the spiritual world he took such profound interest.\n\n[135] See the New York _World_ for Sunday, 21st October 1888; and the\n_Report of the Seybert Commission_, Philadelphia, 1887.\n\n[136] Dr. Newman's observation that the miraculous multiplication of the\npieces of the true cross (with which \"the whole world is filled,\" according\nto Cyril of Jerusalem; and of which some say there are enough extant to\nbuild a man-of-war) is no more wonderful than that of the loaves and fishes\nis one that I do not see my way to contradict. See _Essay on Miracles_, 2d\ned. p. 163.\n\n[137] _An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_, by J. H. Newman,\nD.D., pp. 7 and 8. (1878.)\n\n[138] Dr. Newman faces this question with his customary ability. \"Now, I\nown, I am not at all solicitous to deny that this doctrine of an apostate\nAngel and his hosts was gained from Babylon: it might still be Divine\nnevertheless. God who made the prophet's ass speak, and thereby instructed\nthe prophet, might instruct His Church by means of heathen Babylon\" (Tract\n85, p. 83). There seems to be no end to the apologetic burden that Balaam's\nass can carry.\n\n[139] _Nineteenth Century_, May 1889 (p. 701).\n\n[140] I trust it may not be supposed that I undervalue M. Renan's labours,\nor intended to speak slightingly of them.\n\n[141] To-day's _Times_ contains a report of a remarkable speech by Prince\nBismarck, in which he tells the Reichstag that he has long given up\ninvesting in foreign stock, lest so doing should mislead his judgment in\nhis transactions with foreign states. Does this declaration prove that the\nChancellor accuses himself of being \"sordid\" and \"selfish,\" or does it not\nrather show that, even in dealing with himself, he remains the man of\nrealities?\n\n[142] _Bampton Lectures_ (1859), on \"The Historical Evidences of the Truth\nof the Scripture Records stated anew, with Special Reference to the Doubts\nand Discoveries of Modern Times,\" by the Rev. G. Rawlinson, M.A., pp. 5-6.\n\n[143] _The Worth of the Old Testament_, a Sermon preached in St. Paul's\nCathedral on the Second Sunday in Advent, 8th Dec. 1889, by H. P. Liddon,\nD.D., D.C.L., Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul's. Second edition, revised\nand with a new preface, 1890.\n\n[144] St. Luke xvii. 32.\n\n[145] _Ibid._ 27.\n\n[146] St. Matt. xii. 40.\n\n[147] _Bampton Lectures_, 1859, pp. 50-51.\n\n[148] _Commentary on Genesis_, by the Bishop of Ely, p. 77.\n\n[149] _Die Sintflut_, 1876.\n\n[150] _Theologie und Naturwissenschaft_, ii. 784-791 (1877).\n\n[151] It is very doubtful if this means the region of the Armenian Ararat.\nMore probably it designates some part either of the Kurdish range or of its\nsouth-eastern continuation.\n\n[152] So Reclus (_Nouvelle Geographie Universelle_, ix. 386), but I find\nthe statement doubted by an authority of the first rank.\n\n[153] So far as I know, the narrative of the Creation is not now held to be\ntrue, in the sense in which I have defined historical truth, by any of the\nreconcilers. As for the attempts to stretch the Pentateuchal days into\nperiods of thousands or millions of years, the verdict of the eminent\nbiblical scholar, Dr. Riehm (_Der biblische Schoepfungsbericht_, 1881, pp.\n15, 16), on such pranks of \"Auslegungskunst\" should be final. Why do the\nreconcilers take Goethe's advice seriously?--\n\n \"Im Auslegen seyd frisch und munter!\n  Legt ihr's nicht aus, so legt was unter.\"\n\n[154] Thus Josephus (lib. ix.) says that his rival, Justus, persuaded the\ncitizens of Tiberias to \"set the villages that belonged to Gadara and\nHippos on fire; which villages were situated on the borders of Tiberias and\nof the region of Scythopolis.\"\n\n[155] It is said to have been destroyed by its captors.\n\n[156] \"But as to the Grecian cities Gaza and Gadara and Hippos, he cut them\noff from the kingdom and added them to Syria.\"--Josephus, _Wars_, II. vi.\n3. See also _Antiquities_, XVII. xi. 4.\n\n[157] _Geschichte des juedischen Volkes im Zeitalter Christi_, 1886-90.\n\n[158] If William the Conqueror, after fighting the battle of Hastings had\nmarched to capture Chichester and then returned to assault Rye, being all\nthe while anxious to reach London, his proceedings would not have been more\neccentric than Mr. Gladstone must imagine those of Vespasian were.\n\n[159] See Reland, _Palestina_ (1714), t. ii. p. 771. Also Robinson, _Later\nBiblical Researches_ (1856), p. 87 _note_.\n\n[160] _Nineteenth Century_, February 1891, pp. 339-40.\n\n[161] Neither is it of any consequence whether the locality of the supposed\nmiracle was Gadara, or Gerasa, or Gergesa. But I may say that I was well\nacquainted with Origen's opinion respecting Gergesa. It is fully discussed\nand rejected in Riehm's _Handwoerterbuch_. In Kitto's _Biblical Cyclopaedia_\n(ii. p. 51) Professor Porter remarks that Origen merely \"_conjectures_\"\nthat Gergesa was indicated; and he adds, \"Now, in a question of this kind,\nconjectures cannot be admitted. We must implicitly follow the most ancient\nand creditable testimony, which clearly pronounces in favour of [Greek:\nGadarenon]. This reading is adopted by Tischendorf, Alford, and Tregelles.\"\n\n[162] I may call attention, in passing, to the fact that this authority, at\nany rate, has no sort of doubt of the fact that Jewish Law did not rule in\nGadara (indeed, under the head of \"Gadara,\" in the same work, it is\nexpressly stated that the population of the place consisted \"predominantly\nof heathens\"), and that he scouts the notion that the Gadarene swineherds\nwere Jews.\n\n[163] The evidence adduced, so far as post-exile times are concerned,\nappears to me insufficient to prove this assertion.\n\n[164] Even Leviticus xi. 26, cited without reference to the context, will\nnot serve the purpose; because the swine _is_ \"cloven footed\" (Lev. xi. 7).\n\n[165] 1st Gospel: \"And the devils _besought him_, saying, If Thou cast us\nout send us away _into_ the herd of swine.\" 2d Gospel: \"They _besought\nhim_, saying, Send us _into_ the swine.\" 3d Gospel: \"They _intreated him_\nthat he would give them leave to enter _into_ them.\"\n\n[166] See Marquardt, _Roemische Staatsverwaltung_, Bd. III. p. 408.\n\n[167] _Nineteenth Century_, March 1889 (p. 362).\n\n[168] \"The Value of Witness to the Miraculous.\" _Nineteenth Century_, March\n1889.\n\n[169] I cannot ask the Editor of this Review to reprint pages of an old\narticle,--but the following passages sufficiently illustrate the extent and\nthe character of the discrepancy between the facts of the case and Mr.\nGladstone's account of them:--\n\n\"Now, in the Gadarene affair, I do not think I am unreasonably sceptical if\nI say that the existence of demons who can be transferred from a man to a\npig does thus contravene probability. Let me be perfectly candid. I admit I\nhave no _a priori_ objection to offer.... I declare, as plainly as I can,\nthat I am unable to show cause why these transferable devils should not\nexist.\"... (\"Agnosticism,\" _Nineteenth Century_, 1889, p. 177).\n\n\"What 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 to\noutweigh the counter arguments of humanity, of common sense, of exact\nscience, and to imperil the respect which all would be glad to be able to\nrender to their Master?\" (_ibid._ p. 175).\n\nI then go on through a couple of pages to discuss the value of the evidence\nof the synoptics on critical and historical grounds. Mr. Gladstone cites\nthe essay from which these passages are taken, whence I suppose he has read\nit; though it may be that he shares the impatience of Cardinal Manning\nwhere my writings are concerned. Such impatience will account for, though\nit will not excuse, his sixth proposition.\n\n[170] The wicked, before being annihilated, returned to the world to\ndisturb men; they entered into the body of unclean animals, \"often that of\na pig, as on the Sarcophagus of Seti I. in the Soane Museum.\"--Lenormant,\n_Chaldean Magic_, p. 88, Editorial Note.\n\n[171] In May 1849 the Tigris at Bagdad rose 221/2 feet--5 feet above its\nusual rise--and nearly swept away the town. In 1831 a similarly exceptional\nflood did immense damage, destroying 7000 houses. See Loftus, _Chaldea and\nSusiana_, p. 7.\n\n[172] See the instructive chapter on Hasisadra's flood in Suess, _Das\nAntlitz der Erde_, Abth. I. Only fifteen years ago a cyclone in the Bay of\nBengal gave rise to a flood which covered 3000 square miles of the delta of\nthe Ganges, 3 to 45 feet deep, destroying 100,000 people, innumerable\ncattle, houses, and trees. It broke inland, on the rising ground of\nTipperah, and may have swept a vessel from the sea that far, though I do\nnot know that it did.\n\n[173] See Cernik's maps in _Petermanns Mittheilungen_, Ergaenzungshefte 44\nand 45, 1875-76.\n\n[174] I have not cited the dimensions given to the ship in most\ntranslations of the story, because there appears to be a doubt about them.\nHaupt (_Keilinschriftliche Sindfluth-Bericht_, p. 13) says that the figures\nare illegible.\n\n[175] It is probable that a slow movement of elevation of the land at one\ntime contributed to the result--perhaps does so still.\n\n[176] At a comparatively recent period, the littoral margin of the Persian\nGulf extended certainly 250 miles farther to the north-west than the\npresent embouchure of the Shatt-el Arab. (Loftus, _Quarterly Journal of the\nGeological Society_, 1853, p. 251.) The actual extent of the marine deposit\ninland cannot be defined, as it is covered by later fluviatile deposits.\n\n[177] Tiele (_Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte_, pp. 572-3) has some very\njust remarks on this aspect of the epos.\n\n[178] In the second volume of the _History of the Euphrates Expedition_, p.\n637, Col. Chesney gives a very interesting account of the simple and rapid\nmanner in which the people about Tekrit and in the marshes of Lemlum\nconstruct large barges, and make them watertight with bitumen. Doubtless\nthe practice is extremely ancient; and as Colonel Chesney suggests, may\npossibly have furnished the conception of Noah's ark. But it is one thing\nto build a barge 44 ft. long by 11 ft. wide and 4 ft. deep in the way\ndescribed; and another to get a vessel of ten times the dimensions, so\nconstructed, to hold together.\n\n[179] \"Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine thaetige Unwissenheit.\" _Maximen\nund Reflexionen_, iii.\n\n[180] The well-known difficulties connected with this case have recently\nbeen carefully discussed by Mr. Bell in the _Transactions_ of the\nGeological Society of Glasgow.\n\n[181] An instructive parallel is exhibited by the \"Great Basin\" of North\nAmerica. See the remarkable memoir on \"Lake Bonneville\" by Mr. G. K.\nGilbert, of the United States Geological Survey, just published.\n\n[182] It is true that earthquakes are common enough, but they are\nincompetent to produce such changes as those which have taken place.\n\n[183] See Teller, _Geologische Beschreibung des sud-oestlichen Thessalien_:\nDenkschriften d. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Bd. xl. p. 199.\n\n[184] Dr. Langenbeck, _Die Theorien ueber die Entstehung der Korallen-Inseln\nund Korallen-Riffe_ (p. 13), 1890.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nChanges made against printed original.\n\nPage 6. \"deserving an ensuing punishment of infinite severity\": 'deserving\nand ensuing' in original.\n\nPage 78. \"I cannot bring myself to imagine\": 'cannnot' in original.\n\nPage 230. \"which has been causally associated\": 'casually' in original.\n\nPage 364. \"but what will become of it\": duplicated 'what' across line break\nin original.\n\nPage 540. \"will accuse me of 'contradicting the Lord and his Apostles'\":\n'me' omitted in original.\n\nPage 600. \"by familiar experience\": 'familar' in original.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Essays Upon Some Controverted Questions","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":172038}