IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I "^ IIIM IIM ■^ 111 IIM 40 122 1.8 1-25 1.4 11.6 6" ► (? w /}. /a o el e. ^1 *^ V / ^y 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques r^ Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Coi D D D D )uverture endommagee nCov Cou Covers restored and/or laminated/ verture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculees Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( Pages ddcolor^es, tachet6es ou piquees r^ Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ n Pages detached/ Pages d^tachees □ Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qualite indgale de I'impression I I Includes supplementary material/ D Comprend du materiel supplementaire idition available/ Edition disponible □ Only edition available/ Seule Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuiltet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de facon ^ obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X I I I I I I 7 I M 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ails du idifier une rtage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grace d la g6n^rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de Texemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impies- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont film^s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ♦- signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre film^s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. rata > elure. 3 i2X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 f -. V. i I I hi I A DSFENGE P ^ -*, i OF wmaumtfm c ./> s\y \% BIBUO 1 1 1 .-QLE N A 1 pN Al£ .■-i" a ^^ MODERN THOUGHT. IN REPLY TO A RECENT PAMPHLET, BY THE BISHOP OF ONTARIO, ON "AGNOSTICISM." I I I 15V W. 1). IE SUEUli, B.A. % I t i -'3. i: z® i rl . ^ • 3 i0r0ttto: HUNTER, ROSE & COxMPANY. L-. 1884. 1^ ^lap^ ^'■■i«Er:4^"«^^:4i^s; ^^^sr.x^^\^e^;^^8r;^Pi3»;:> •■^^ss I'^r^Siv. ■5 •• A DEFENCE OF MODERN THODGPIT. The Bishop of Oatario has been moved, like many another Bishop, to bear his testimony against an evil which, it is stated, is niakinj^ serious ravages in the Christian world — an evil which goes by many names, but which his Lordship finds it most convenient to deal with under the name of Agnosticism. His views on this important subject were first delivered orally to the Synod of the Diocese of Ontario, and were subsequently, at the request of that body, given to the world in pamphlet form. We have therefore before us one more recognition of the fact that the ancient doctrines are becoming harder and harder for modern men to believe. The opposition to tliem, the Bishop of Ontario informs us, is no longer confined to pro- fessedly " rationalistic writings, but is manifest in conversa- tion, magazines and newspapers." " It has crept," he adds, *' into our churches ; and heads of families, who are churchgoers and outwardly believers, are at heart Agnostics." This is very true, and should always be borne in mind when attempts are made to estimate the strength of the churches on the basis of their nominal adherents. A man who is outwardly an '• agnos- tic" may be relied on to be one in reality ; but an outward pro- fession of orthodoxy calls for confirmation, a Bishop being the witness. )i A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. (Seeing that the Church is tlius face to face with a movement of the most hostile kind, it would certainly seem desirable that in calling attention to the fact some distinct attempt should be made to determine the probable limits of the movement — to show how far it can proceed and where it must stop. For men may reasonably ask, " How do we know that this falling away from the faith, as you call it, is not in reality the rise of a new fiiiLh destined to overspread the world "i You say that the old doctrines are ceasing to be believed by many : how do wc know that a hundred years hence they will be believed by any ? If the doctrine of Evolution can so shake the founda- tions of orthodoxy, what may not be expected from some further, and possibly still more important, scientific construc- tion ? " It would be easy to answer these questions by simply quoting certain alleged Divine guarantees of the permanence of the Church ; but such an answer would not be to the purpose in what claims to be a philosophic discussion. What, after all, is the Church 1 Surely it consists of its members, and if one member may be lost to it why not one thousand 1 If one thousand, why not one million, or one hundred millions ? All must be held to be alike in the Divine eye ; that is to say, of equal interest and value. The Church is really overthrown every time it loses a member — as much overthrown, so far as that member is concerned, as if all his fellow-believers had fal- len away with him. We only have to conceive the operation that takes place in the individual case multiplied a certain number of times, and, lo ! there is no Church. Of course, as already observed, it is possible to rely on a promise given that this result will never befall ; but an enquirer of anything like a scientific turn of mind would like to have the matter other- wise and more satisfactorily explained to him, J ■ -— 'W W ii M llpi* i 1 1 i A DEFENCE OF MODERN TttOUGlIT. 3 From tlie point of view of the present writer, there are good reasons for believing that a general readjustment of thought is now in progress, and that it is destined to go on until old forms of belief, inconsistent with a rational interpretation of the world, have been completely overthrown. This progres- sive readjustment is not a thing of yesterday ; it is simply that gradual abandonment of the theological standpoint which has been taking place throughout the ages. As a modern philoso- pher has remarked, the very conception of miracle marks the beginnings of rationalism, seeing that it recognises an estab- lished order of things, a certain " reign of law," with which only supernatural power can interfere. The progress beyond this point consists in an increasing perception of the universality of law, and an increasing disposition to be exacting as to the evidences of miracle. No candid person can read the his- tory of modern times without arriving at the conclusion that the whole march of civilization illustrates, above everything else, this gradual change of intellectual standpoint. Man's power keeps pace ever with his knowledge of natural law, and his recognition of the uniformity of its operations. What we see to-day is simply the anticipation by thousands of the con- clusion to which all past discoveries and observations have been pointing, that the reign of law is and always has been absolute. This is really what " agnosticism " so called means. It means that thinking men are tired of the inconsistencies of the old system of belief, and that they desire to rest in an order of conceptions not liable to disturbance. The great Faraday, who had not brought himself to this point, used to say that when he had to deal with questions of faith he left all scien- tific and other human reasonings at the door, and that when he had to deal with questions of science he discarded in like 4 A DEFENCE i)V MODEUN THOUGHT. The legion of manner all theological modes of thought, science was one region, tliat of faith was another ; and be- tween these he [)laced a wall so high that once on either side he could see nothing that lay on the other, lie did not at« tempt to reconcile faith with science as some do; he separated them utterly, feeling them apparently to be irreconcilable. Thus he virtually lived in two worlds — one in which no mira- cles took place, but in which everything Howed in an orderly manner from recognised antecedents, and another in which the chain of causation might be broken at any moment by super- natural power. Since Faraday's time, however, men of science have grown bolder. They have renounced the attempt to live a divided life. They do not believe in insuperable barriers between one field of thought and another. They believe in the unity of the human mind and in the unity of truth. They have made their choice — those of them at least whom the Bishop of Ontario designates as agnostics — in favour of a world in which cause and etlect maintain constant relations. In doing so they do not act wilfully, but simply yield to the irre- sistible weight of evidence. Miracle is a matter of more or less uncertain testimony, while the unchangeableness of natural law is a matter of daily observation. Miracles never happen in the laboratory. Supernatural apparitions do not haunt the museum. Distant ages and countries or lonely road-sides reap all the glory of these manifestations. What wonder then that the man of science prefers to trust in what his eyes daily see and his hands handle, rather than in narratives of perfervid devotees or in traditions handed down from centuries whose leading characteristic was an omnivorous credulity. There is nothing negative in this attitude of mind. On the contrary, it is positive in the highest degree. The true man of science 1 A DKFKNCK OF :\10DERX TTrormiT. 5 wants to know and believe as mnch as possible. lie desires to know what is and to adapt his thon;2;hts to that ; and the nni verse is to him simply an inexhaustible treasure-house of truths, all of more or less practical import. It is right, however, before proceeding further, to examine this word " agnosticism" a little, to see whether it is one that is really serviceable in the present controversy. That some have been willing to apply the term to themselves and to re- gard it as rather hen trovato, 1 am quite aware ; but I think there are good reasons why serious thinkers should decline to call themselves by such a name and should objoct to its appli- cation to them by others. A question proposed for discussion either can or cannot be settled ; it either lies within or beycmd the region in which verification is possible. If it lies within that region, no mail should call himself an agnostic in regard to it. He may with- hold his judgment until the evidence is complete, but suspen- sion of judgment is not agnosticism which, if it means anything, means a profession of hopeless and, so to speak, invincible ignorance in regard to certain matters. But if it wouhl be ab- surd for a man to profess himself an agnostic in regard to pro- blems admitting or believed to admit of solution, is it not idle for any one to accept that desiignation because he believes that there are other problems or propositions which do not admit of solution 1 All one has to do in relation to the latter class of pro- blems is to recognise their unreal or purely verbal character. It is the nature of the problem that requires to be character- ized, not our mental relation thereto. The latter follows as a matter of course from the former. Moreover, why should any- one wish or consent to be designated by a term purely negative in its meaning 1 It is what we know, not what we do not ( I G A DKFKNCE OF MODEHN THOUGHT. know that should furnish us with a name, if it is necessary to have one. The little that a man knows is of vastly more con- sequence to him than all the untrodden continents of his ig- norance. The chemist calls himself so because he professes to have a knowledge of chemistry : he does not invent for himself a name signifying his ignorance of political economy or meta- physics. AVliy then should any man adopt a name which de- fines his relatioji not to things that he knows or to questions to which he attributes a character of reality, but to things that he does not know and to questions which, so fiir as he can see, have no character of reality ? Let others give him such a name if they will, but let no man voluntarily tie himself to a negation. There are some, as I believe, who have adopted the appella- tion of agnostic thoughtlessly ; some through indolence, as ap- pearing to exempt them from the necessity of a decision in regard to certain difficult and, in a social sense, critical ques- tions ; and some possibly for the reason hinted at by the Bishop of Ontario, namely, lack of the courage necesnary to take up a more decided position. Whatever the motive may be, how- ever, I am persuaded that the term is a poor one for purposes of definition ; and I should advise all earnest men, who think more of their beliefs than of their disbeliefs, to disown it so far as they themselves are concerned. If it be asked by what ap- pellation those who do not believe in '' revealed relision" are to be known, I should answer that it is not their duty to coin for themselves any sectarian title. They are in no sense a sect. They believe themselves to be on the high road of na- tural truth. It is they who have cast aside all limited and partial views, and who are opening their minds to the full teaching of the universe. Let their opponents coin names if they will : they whom the truth has made free feel that their creed is too wide for limitation. A DKFENCE OF MOOEIIN TIIOUiJlIT. , >» "i Tlio I'ishop of Ontario stands forth in the pamphlnt before U8 simply as the champion of the two great doctrines of God and Immortality. In reality, however, he is the champion of rauch more, for ho does not profess that these doctrines can stand by themselves apart from a belief in revelation. The issue between the Bishop and those whom he styles agnostics is not really as to these two abstract doctrines, bnt as to the validity of the whole miraculous system of which liis Lordship is a responsible exponent. If we can imagine a person simply holding, as the result of his own individual reasonings or other mental experiences, a belief in God as a spiritual existence animating and presiding over the works of nature, and a further belief in a future existence for the human soul, I do not see that there would necessarily be any conflict between him and the most advanced representatives of modern thought. No, the trouble does not begin here. The trouble arises when these beliefs are presented as part and parcel of a supernatural sys- tem miraculously revealed to mankind, and embracing details which bring it plainly into conflict with the known facts and laws of nature. To detach these two doctrines therefore from the system to which they belong, and put them forward as if the whole stress of modern philosophical criticism was di- rected against them in particular, is a controversial artifice of a rather unfair kind. We are reminded by the right reverend author that no chain is stronger than its weakest link, and we are asked to apply the principle to the doctrine of Evolution, some of the links of which his Lordship ha3 tested and found unable to bear the proper strain. The principle is undoubtedly a sound one ; but has it occurred to his Lordship that it is no less applicable to the net-work of doctrine in which he believes than to the 1 8 A deffi:nce of modern tttought. ■ I » t doctrine of Evolution ? Some links of that net-work arc snap- ping every day under no greater strain than the simple exercise- of common sense by ordinary men. It is a beautiful and well- chosen position that his Lordship takes up as champion of the- doctrines of God and Immortality against " agnostic " science ;. but it would have argued greater courage had the banner been planted on the miraculous narratives of the Old and New Tes- tament. A gallant defence of the Scriptural account of the taking of Jericho, of the arresting for a somewhat sanguinary purpose of the earth's rotation, of the swallowing of Jonah by a whale, and his restoration to light and liberty after three days and ni--- if Jay arguments specially diree ed" J f ? ''""'"•'"'«'' "^ ">« --en against that oL polSr '^''"'''"'^ »'■ ^od h"»anity. What every one c ' It " °'''' "' ''"^'^""^ ''«' :"'e.yvho are called'.. agnoTti ."r 7"'" '' '''^' "- ^3'ndalls, and Darwins plead fl! tV '''"'=•'''' Huxleys, '-^ and the abiding '„n'f: n," * ^^--lity of nature's -'•at they are concerned to T^^ ' 'T P^~^^^«^- That is '•l^.'^" -ience depends Sere S?' '""-^ '' -Pon that '''f ''imposed to disturb any one- ,r;" ^"^"^ "« "^-^ «» '0"g as these doctrines are no/ ""^ "' ''""'"■'^"'y. -ard as involving others ^h^ ealir ""?' "'*' '' P"' <•- ence and tend to cast uncerU „tv "^ '"^'''^ *^ ''"'^'^ "f ^ci- . I« -ekingtoaccount or ..he'";'' "^''"'^^'""1 -«•''• ;-V' the Bishop finds that it i to "t™ 'T' "' ^=""-«- '^"^y of the theory of Evolution IJ ""''^ ^P^^^^ P°P»- al>sm," that the phenomenoT?\"^ '' " '^"'^^ *<> "^ateri- ,«>^ theory of Evolution Lusl 17: '"''T'"' ^""-^"-"^ '- gone forth, and the en ieo , kT'' '''*' ^P'^'^^P^' ^^icl ""! 'ater Carthage of infid J'^^ f 7: ^ ^-^ against ently appear that the right Sere d . ' " "^"'^ "»' «"«»'• ;^-tands either the natu o the ta ^Tl' "' "^^ ^'^=- - ' - significance which would attach '^ '""'"'^'^«» <»• "• . To take the latter poiit: '" "'='=^^^ -"^ »« achieve ^ap.d progress before the evolu '' IT""" ^"^ "^'''"S -^^ -de popularity, before „ act I ' '''' ^"^"'-^ »' «'de of one or two speculative t . '° "'^^ known of it out- of m.racle.working power w! f,'' ""^ ^*'"' "'« theatre P was well-marked. Twenty-two II » ^ * A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. 11 at all vea if fthe God e for the ire's years ago, when " The Origin of Species " was but two years old, and had still a great deal of opposition to encounter even from men of science, before even the term Evolution had any currency in the special sense it now bears, a leading prelate of the Church of England, Bishop Wilberforce, discerned a scep- tical movement " too wide-spread and connecting itself with far too general conditions " to be explained otherwise than as " the first stealing over the sky of the lurid lights which shall be shed profusely around the great Antichrist." * To charge the present intellectual state of the world therefore on the doc- trine of Evolution is to ignore that general movement of thought which, before the idea of evolution was a factor of any importance in modern speculation, had already, as the Bishop of Oxford testified, carried thousands away from their old theo- logical habitations, and which, with or without the theory of evolution, was quite adapted to produce the state of things which we see to-day in the intellectual world. The doctrine of evolution is simply the form in which the dominant scientific thought of the day is cast. As a working hypothesis it presents very great advantages ; and the thinkers of to-day would find it hard to dispense with the aid it affords. But supposing it could be shown that the doctrine, as at pre- sent conceived, was untenable — what then > Would men of science at once abandon their belief in the invariability of na- tural law and fly back to mediaeval superstitions 1 By no means. If there is any class of men who have learnt the les- son that the spider taught to Bruce, it is the class of scientific workers. Destroy one of their constructions and they set to work again, with unconquerable industry, to build another. In fact they are always testing and trying their own construc- *Vide Preface to " Kepliea to Essays and Keviewa," / *. 12 A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT tions ; and we may be sure that if the evohition theory is ever to be swept away it will be by scientific not theological hands. It holds its ground now, because it is a help to thought and investigation ; if it should ever become so beset with difficul- ties as to be no longer serviceable it will be withdrawn from use, as many a theory has been before it, and as many a one will be in the days to come. Amongst contemporary men of science there is probably none who believes more strongly in tiie doctrine in question than the Editor of the Popular Science Monthh/, Prof. E. L. Youmans ; yet in a recent number of his mai-azine he has marked his attitude towards it in a manner which for our present purpose is very instructive. " It is un- deniable," he writes, " that the difficulties in the way of the doctrine of evolution are many and formidable, and it will no doubt take a long time to clear them up ; while the solution of still unresolved problems will very possibly result in im- portant modifications of the theory as now entertaii>ed. But the establishment of the doctrine of evolution, as a comprehen- sive law of nature, is no longer dependent upon its freedom from embarrassments, or that absolute completeness of proof which will only become possible with the future extension of knowledge. Notwithstanding these drawbacks the evidence for it is so varied, so consistent, and so irresistible, as to com- pel its broad acceptance by men of science, who, while disa- greeing upon many of its questions, find it indispensable as a guide to the most multifarious investigations." We come now to the further question of the validity of the criticisms directed in the pamphlet before us against the doc- trine of evolution, in discussing which the competency of the critic for h' f imposed task will necessarily come more or Jess under w^iisideration, Let us first notice the quQt^tiqnss A DEFENCE OF MODERN THDUGIIT. 13 which his Lordship brings forward, rem3mbering that the doctrine of evolution in its present shape may be said to be the work of the last twenty years. Well, his Lordsliip quotes three leading scientific authors, Owen, Agasi^iz and Lyell ; but it is noticeable that, in no case, does he give the date of his quotation, and in the case of the first two does not even mention the work in which the passage he refers to is to be found. The quotations are intended to show that these eminent authors re- jected the doctrine of the "origin of species by natural selection." As regards Agassiz, who died ten years ago, every one knows that this was the case ; and most are also aware that the great Swiss naturalist left behind him a son, a naturalist almost equally great, who supports the Darwinian theory as strongly as his father opposed it. Owen, though not a Darwinian in the full sense, held views which were clearly in the direction of natural selection. It is, however, when we come to Lyell that we have cause for ast' .nent. Here we have the most eminent of English geologists, whose adhesion to the Darwinian theory, announced for the first time in 1863 — the date of the publica- tion of the first edition of his ''Antiquity of Man" — created such a sensation in the scientific world, quoted, at this time of day, as an anti-Darwinian ! What are we to think of this ] I cannot and do not believe, nor would I wish to suggest, that the Right Reverend the Bishop of Ontario was carried so far in his zeal against evolution as deliberately to misrepresent Sir Charles Lyell's attitude towards that doctrine. The only other hy- pothesis, however, is that of extreme ignorance. Of this his Lordship must stand, not only accused, but convicted. The fact of Sir Charles Lyell's conversion to the views of D irwin on the origin of species was one of which the whole reading world took note at the time, and which has been known to 14 A DEFENCE OB^ MODERN THOUGHT. every tyro in general science from that day to this. His Lord- ship, quoting from the " Principles of Geology," but without any mention of edition, represents Sir Charles as holding " that species have a real existence in nature, and that each was endowed at the time of its creation with the attributes and organization by which it is now distinguished." That these were Sir Charles Lyell's views when the earlier editions of his Principles were published everyone is aware ; but it is a most extraordinary thing that anyone should have quoted them as his full twenty years after he had distinctly abandoned them. The preface to the fourth edition of the " Antiquity of Man " opens as follows : — " The first edition of the " Antiquity of Man " was published in 18G3, and was the firat work in which I expressed my opinion of the prehistoric age of man, and also my belief in Mr. Darwin's theory of the ' Origin of Species ' as the best explanation yet offered of the connection between man and those animals which have flourished successively on the earth." In the 10th edition of his " Principles," published in 18G8 he says (page 41)2) that " Mr. Darwin, without abso- lutely proving this (theory), has made it appear in the highest degree probable, by an appeal to many distinct and indepen- dent classes of phenomena in natural history and geology." Darwin himself would not have claimed more for his theory than this. Professor Huxley would not claim more for it to- day. Enough for either of them the admission that, by argu- ments drawn from many quarters, it had been rendered " in the highest degree probable." In his " Antiquity of Man,"* Sir Charles Lyell expressly acknowledges the inconclusiveuess of the arguments he had used at an earlier date to prove that " species were primordial creations and not derivative." His * See 4th edition, page 4G9. i i A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGH r. 15 •SI I reasonings, he frankly confesses, could not hold their ground '* in the light of the facts and arguments adduced by Darwin and Hooker." As regards the " descent of man," after quoting a passage from Darwin to the effect that " man is the co-de- scendant with other mammals of a common progenitor," he observes that " we certainly cannot escape from such a conclu- sion without abandoning many of the weightiest arguments which have been urged in support of variation and natural selection considered as the subordinate causes by which new types have been gradually introduced into the world." On every point, therefore, the real views of Sir Charles Lyell, as formed in the light of the facts adduced by Darwin and of his own maturer reasonings, were totally opposed to those quoted in the Bishop's pamphlet. Is it not remarkable, such being the case, that not one member of the reverend and learned clergy of the Diocese of Kingston, by whose special request this document was given to the world, should have suggested a correction on this point 1 Was there not a lay delegate who could have done it; or were they all — Bishop, clergy, and laymen — equally in the dark 1 It would really seem so. Who can wonder that the doctrine of evolution does not make much progress in cer- tain quarters 1 Sir Charles Lyell unfortunately is not the only author mis- represented. Huxley is said to " discredit" the origin of life from non-living matter. Huxley does nothing of the kind ; he simply says that the experiments heretofore made to show that life can be so developed have not been successful. On the page of the pamphlet immediately preceding that on which this statement is made in regard to Huxley, we are informed, correctly, that the same great naturalist professes " a philoso- phic faith in the probability of spontaneous generation." IG A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. Surely his Lorilship couUl not have understood the force of these words, or he would not have said, almost immediately after, that " the origin of life on earth * * * is not only discredited* by Huxley but by many other great scientists." A writer who finds such comparatively simple language beyond his comprehension is not, one would judge, very well fitted to enter the lists against the leading thinkers of the day, except perhaps for strictly diocesan purposes. That his Lordship is really hopelessly at sea in discussing this question is evident by many signs. Such sentences as the following speak volumes for the mental confusion of their author : " Agnosticism takes refuge in Evolution in order to get rid of the idea of God as unthinkable and unknowable." Here again inaccuracies of language. An idea may be un- thinkable in the sense of not admitting of being thought out, but can an idea be said to be '' unknowable ] " What is an unknowable idea ] An idea must be known in order to be an idea at all. But this mere verbal inaccuracy is not the worst. We had been told that Agnosticism was a form of opinion ac- cording to which nothing could be known of God. Now it seems that Agnosticism has to fall back on Evolution, " in order to get rid of the idea of God as unthinkable and unknow- able." Now the so called Agnosticism could not have been agnosticism in reality, otherwise it would not have required the help of evolution in such a matter. If we ask how Evo- tion helps Agnosticism to regard " the idea of God as unthink- able and unknowable," we shall only find the confusion grow- ! i * His Lordship means "discredited not only by Huxley, but by &c." The inaccuracy of expression observable here is paralleled in many other passages of the pamphlet. For example, his Lordship says, page 5 : *' They are not content to speak for themselves, but for all the world besides." A Bishop should write better English than this. )} &c." ther ^hey A 1 A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. 17 ing worse coJifoundeJ. Evolution has nothing to do with such questions : it is a simple theory as to the mode of generation and order of succession of different forms of existences. It is, however, when his Lordship comes to discuss the doc- trine of the survival of the fittest that his sad want of ac- quaintance with the whole subject shows itself most conspicu- ously. Let me quote : "By some means or other ' the sur- vival of the fittest in the struggle for existence' is assumed to be a law of nature, and if it be so our faith is severely taxed. Survival of the fittest — fittest for what 1 If the ansvrer be, fittest for surviving, we argue in a circle, and get no informa- tion whatever. The only rational answer must be, they sur- vive who are fittest for their environments in size, strength and vigour." Let me here ask what sense the learned author can possibly attach to these last words except the very one he had just discarded as meaningless — *• fitness to survive." How is fitness to environment proved except by the actual fact of survival? Do environments always require "size" as an ele- ment of fitness ] By no means, they sometimes require small- ness. When a mouse escapes into a hole, where the cat can- not follow, it survives not by reason of its size, but by reason of its smallness. Strength again is one element of adaptation to environment, but only one; and it may fall far below some other element, swiftness, for example, or cunning, in practical importance. The fact however that the learned author sees no meaning in the answer " fitness to survive," tells the whole story of his own unfitness for the special environment in which he has placed himself in attempting to discuss the doctrine of evolution, and rather tends to create doubt as to the survival of the work he has given to the world. This is a matter in which no aptitude in quoting Horace is of any avail. The '2, IS A DEFENCE OF MODERN TIIOUCJIIT. road to an understanding of the terms and conception ^ of mo- dern science liea in a careful study at tirst hand of the; works in which these terms and conceptions are ex[)()undeii. His Lordship assumes that, if we say that those survive who are fit to survive, we utter a barren truism. It is a truism we may grant, but not a barren one, any more than the axioms of geometry are barren. The simple word " fitness" implies a definite external something, adaptation to which is the price of existence. The definiteness of the mould involves the defi- niteness of that which is moulded ; and all the miracles of life and organization we see around us are in the last resort merely examples of adaptation to fixed conditions of existence. " Born into life we are," says Matthew Arnold, " and life must be our mould." By "life" understand the universe and we have a poetical version of the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. It so happens, and this is a further truth which it would not be well to pass over, that adaptation does more or less imply excellence even from the human standpoint. All those adaptations that favour human life and happiness we of course call excellent, even though they may not be favourable to the life and ha})piness of other living creatures. And as man has thriven mightily and prevailed, adaptation in (jeneral presents itself to him in a favourable light. Occasionally, when his crops are destroyed by some insect pest wonderfully adapted for its work, or when his cattle are infested with deadly para- sites, or when Kome germ of disease is multiplying a million- fold in his own frame, he sees that all adaptations are not yoked to his especial service. His Lordship seems to suppose that the believers in the doctrine of the survival of the fittest are bound to show that there has been a steady improvement of type from the first A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. 19 dawn of life. To show how gross and inexcusable a misunder- standing tliis is, I need only quote two sentences from Sir Charles Lyell's " Antiquity of Man " : — " One of the principal claims," observes the great geologist, " of Mr. Darwin's theory to ac- ceptance is that it enables us to dispense with a laio oj progression as a necessary accompaniment of variation. It will account equally well for what is called degradation or a retrogade movement towards a simpler structure, and does not require Lamarck's continual creation of monads ; for this was a neces- sary part of his system in order to explain how, after the pro- gressive pow^er had been at work for myriads of ages, there were as many beings of the simplest structure in existence as ever. "•X- Writing thus in ignorance of what the law of the survival of the fittest, as formulated by Darwin, and accepted by modern men of science, really means, his Lordship is able to ask such pointless questions as whether the law is illustrated in the slaughtering of the flower of a nation in war, and whether it is the fittest who survive famines, pestilences, shipwrecks, &c. His Lordship evidently does not himself believe there is any provision for the survival of the fittest in the Providen- tial government of the world ; yet, strange to say, he taunts evolutionists with this lack in the general scheme of things. If it be an embarrassment to their theory how much more should it be to the Bishop's theology ? The evolutionist might, however, turn round and instruct the divine out of his own pocket Bible, where it is expressly stated that the wicked shall not live out half his days ; and then out of the newspa- pers which continually show us what happens to the violent and bloody man, to the intemperate and to various other * Fourth edition, 4th jjage 45'J. 20 A DEFENCE OF MUDEllN THOUGHT. classes of evil doers. The evolution philosophy does not guar- antee, .IS has been already hhown, continuous progress in what, from the human standpoint, may seem the best directions ; but evolutionists are able to note, and do note with satisfaction, that the qualities which the moral sense of mankind most ai)proves do in point of fact tend to the survival of their pos- sessors. War itself illustrates the principle ; seeing that the most important element of strength abroad is cohesion at home, a condition which must depend on a rehitively high develop- ment of social justice. To take an example from our own his- tory : Eng'ish arms would not have been so successful as they have been abroad, had there not been an united country be- hind them. It was the virtues, not the vices, of the Roman people that enabled them to conquer the world. It was their vices not their virtues that led to their fall. Fitness to sur- vive is a quality the import of which varies according to cir- cumstances. In shipwrecks (to pursue his Lordship's illustra- tions) the fit to survive are those who can swim, or who have readiness of resource or strength of constitution. In famines and pestilences the physically stronger will as a rule survive ; though here prudence and self-control become also most impor- tant elements of safety. Let it always be remembered that the problem with which evolutionary philosophy has to grapple is not how to account for a perfect world, or a perfect state of society, but how to account for just such a mingling of good and evil (accompanied by general tendencies towards good) as we actually witness. This once settled, most of the objec- tions of the theologians would be seen to fall wide of the mark. To persons unfamiliar, or but slightly familiar, with the present subject, it is possible that the Bishop of Ontario may appear to have touched a weak point in the doctrine under discussion where A DKFKNCE OF MoPKUN TIlol'CHT. 21 Ic- Iv. lit to re lie aays ; — " Laws of nattiro sIiou'kI bo {»l)nyi'(l iind co-operatnl witli, not fought against and thwarted ; and, if th«^ survival of the fittest bo one of those laws, we ought to abolish all hospitals and asylums for the blind, the deaf, the drunkard, the idiot and the lunatic, and we ought to expose to death all sickly, puny and superfluous infants." A word therefore in regard to this objection may not be thrown away. The first observation to make is, that there is nothing wliatever in the law of the survival of the fittest, as understood by men of sci- ence to-(lay, which could possibly be converted into a rule of conduct. Tiie scientific world is not aware that nature has any ends in view, or is capable of having any ends in view, which she needs the help of man to enable her to realize. Science does not attribute purpose to nature. Science has simply obtained a glimmering of how, in point of fact, na- ture works. It sees that survival is a question of fitness, in other words a question of the fulfilment of the conditions on which continued existence depends. In some cases, as is well known, superiority of type becomes an impediment, not a help, to the preservation of life ; and in a vast number of cases the differentiations on which survival depends imply neither progress nor retrogression.* What moral guid- ance, therefore, can possibly be found in a simple percep- tion of the fact that in the realm of nature there are conditions attached to survival ? We imay ask, in the next pliice, whether there is any single law of nature which men " obey," or ever have obeyed, in the sense in which his Lordship bids us obey the law of the survival of the fittest. When a conflagra- tion rages, do we "obey" and " co-operate" with nature by Vide Spencer, '* Principles of Socioloi^'y," Vol. I. pp. 100-7, and Haeckel, " History of Creation," Vol. I. p. 28.5. 22 A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. i !il adding fuel to the flames 1 When pestilence is abroad, do we try to increase its deadly activity 1 When we stumble, do we make a point of yielding to the law of gravitation and throwing ourselves headlong ] When the winter winds are howling, do we throw open doors and windows that we may feel all the force and bitterness of the blast ? Or do we, in these and all other cases, seek to modify the action of one law by that of another — a process his Lordship calls " thwarting" — in order that their combined or balanced action may yield u^ as nearly as possible, the results we desire. We throw water on the fire. We use disinfectants and prophylactics against the plague. We set muscular force against that of gravitation. We oppose warmth to cold. In none of these cases do we ask what nature wants ; we are content to know what tve want. We don't really believe that nature wants anything ; so we have no hesitation or compunction in letting our wants rule. In the matter of the weak and sickly, they might perish if un- conscious forces alone were at work, or even in certain condi- tions of human society ; but it does not suit our interests, for very obvious reasons, to let them perish. To do so would strike at all human affections, and would so far weaken the bonds of society and render the whole social fabric less se- cure. Moreover a sick man is very different from a sick animal. The latter is inevitably inferior as an animal, whereas the for- mer may not only not be inferior, but may be superior as a man, and capable of rendering much service to society. Two instances occur to me as I write — that of the late Professor Cairnes in England, and of the late Professor Ernest Bersot in France, both smitten with cruel and hopeless maladies, but both fulfilling, in an eminent degree, the highest intellectual and moral offices of men. What the well do for the sick is of A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGUT. 23 Lhe course obvious and attracts suflG.cient attention ; but what the sick do for the well, not being so obvious, attracts less atten- tion than it deserves. Yet how many lessons of patience, for- titude, and resignation — lessons that all require— come to us from the sick bed, or at least from those whom weakness of constitution or perhaps some unhappy accident has robbed of a normal activity and health. At times we see superiority of intellectual and moral endowment triumphing over the most serious physical disabilities ; as in the case of the present Post- master-General of England, who accidentally lost his sight when quite a youth. The late M. Louis Blanc, a man of splendid talents, never advanced beyond the stature of a child. The ancient Spartans might have exposed one of so feeble a frame on Taygetus ; for with them every man had to be a sol- dier ; but, in modern life, with its greatly diversified interests, many a man too weak to be a soldier can yet render splendid service to the community. It will, therefore, I trust, be suf- ficiently obvious, first, that nature has no commands to give us in this matter ; and secondly, that there are excellent rea- sons why we should not treat the sick and weakly, as the lower animals commonly, but not universally, treat the sick and weakly of their own kind. * There is, however, another view of this question which should not be overlooked. While human beings in civilized countries manifest, and always have manifested, more or less sympathy with the physically afflicted, their steadfast aim has been to get rid of physical evil in all its forms. No care that is taken of the sick has for its object the perpetuation of sickness, but rather its extirpation. We do not put idiots to death ; but when an idiot dies there is a general feeling of re- * See Romanes, ** Animal Intelligence," pp. 471, 475, as to the sympathy exhibited by the monkey tribe towards their sick. 24 A DEFENCE OF MODFT^N TITOTTOTIT. I) k'li IJI lief tliat so imperfect an existence has come to an end. Were idiots permitted to marry, the sense of decency of the whole community would be outraged. Public opinion blames those who marry knowing that there is some serious taint in their blood ; and commends on the other hand those who abstain from, or defer, marriage on that account. There is probably room for a furtlier development of sentiment in this direction. We need to feel more strongly that all maladies and ailments are in their nature preventible, inasmuch as they all flow from definite physical antecedents. As long as our views on this subject are tinged in the smallest degree with supernaturalism, 80 long will our efi*orts to track disease to its lair and breeding- grounds be but half-hearted. How can we venture to check ab- ruptly, or at all, the course of a sickness sent expressly for our chastisement 1 Is it for us to say when the rod has been sufii. ciently applied 1 How do we dare to fortify ourselves in ad- vance against disease, as if to prevent the Almighty from deal- ing with us according to our deserts 1 We vaccinate for small- pox, we drain for malaria, we cleanse and purify for cholera, we ventilate and disinfect, we diet and we exercise — and all for what ? Precisely to avoid the paternal chastenings which we have been taught are so good for us, and the origin of which has always been attributed by faith to the Divine pleasure. Evidently our views are undergoing a change. We all wish to be fit to survive, and all more or less believe that it is in our power to be so and to help others to be so. We believe in sanitary science ; and, if we attribute any purpose in the mat- ter to the Divine mind, it is that all men should come to the knowledge of the truth, as revealed by a study of nature, and live. One might be tempted to bestow a word on the singular opinion expressed by the right-reverend author that "some '! e d A DEFENCE OF MOBERN THOUOnT. 25 t > > '* men are born colour-blind towards God.'' This perhaps we may !say : that, as the Bishop does not believe in evolution, it be- comes a very critical question on whom the responsibility for the unhappy condition of these individuals lies. Are they the predestined vessels of wrath of whom St. Paul speaks % There are few, it seems to me, who would not be dis])osed to fly to Evolution or even to Agnosticism as a refao:e from so dire a doctrine. It is time, however, that I should deal in a more direct and independent manner with the question as to the moral and in- tellectual status of those who reject the Bishop's theology. One's own position is not made good by simply showing that the particular criticisms directed against it by a particular ad- versary are of no weight. The Bishop in this case may be all wrong, but those whom he qualifies as agnostics may be all wrong too. Are they right or are they wrong 1 — that is the main question. In discussing this question I desire to speak with the greatest frankness, knowing how pressing is the need for sincere utterance, in order that the true thoughts of manv hearts may be revealed. " Not every one who saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." Not every one who says that the old theology is false has entered truly into intellectual or moral liberty. The division of men into orthodox and heterodox is, after all, a very superficial di- vision. It is possible, we are told, to ** hold the truth in un- righteousness," and, if so, it is no doubt conversely possible to hold error in righteousness. The best thing in the old theo- logical system is the inspiration it affords, or has afforded, to- wards right living ; and this again is the best fruit we can ex- pect from the new beliefs. Only in so far as they yield this fruit can they be depended on to supersede the old. The ag- 26 A DKFENCE OF MODERN TlIOUfJlIT. nostic, as such, liaa, I freely grant, no particular inspiration towards any line of conduct ; and this, if all other reasons were wanting, is reason enough for not making profession of agnos- ticism. Moral inspiration and guidance can only come from realized knowledge, however moderate in amount; not from the negation of knowledge on however magnificent a scale. The question therefore is : Upon which resources can we depend for the moral future of humanity if the creeds cease to be believed 1 This question can perhaps best be answered by considering what we should do if, in point of fact, it were demonstrated beyond all possibility of doubt that the theological system of Christendom had no better foundation than any of the theolo- gies it has superseded. Let us try to imagine the situation for a moment. The discourses of the clergy, the services of the several churches, would (let us say) come to a stop, and there would be a general feeling of amazement and uncertainty amonurst the vast multitude of those who had held to the creeds with entire confidence. But when people had had time to talk the matter over, and to consider what it was best to do under the circumstances, is it in the least likely that the conclusion would be to abandon all attempts at a recognition of moral obligation and to make selfish appetite their sole guide 1 I do not in the least believe that any such decision would be arrived at, any more than I believe that the decision of a ship's crew cast upon a desert island would be that the best thing to do would be to sit down passively and starve. No, men would very speedily set about adapting themselves to their new circumstances. Some would perhaps refuse their aid or sympathy to any efforts made to establish a new order and new moral sanctions ; yet none the less, I imagine, would these I ^ t # , A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. 27 k individuals wish to profit by the labours of others in that direc- tion. They might talk as they liked about the vanity of trying to establish, or even recognise, any moral law in the absence of a clear knowledge of the existence of God and of a law re- vealed by Hirn : yet none the less would they crave justice from their fellow men : none the less would they feel aggrieved if that justice were denied. I imagine that, under the circum- stances described, men would begin to betliink themselves how the various situations of life call for duties to which the heart of man instinctively responds. They would think at once of the famil}!, that training-school of the affections, that sphere which types to us what the constitution of society in general may some day be. They would remember that, even in the lower creation, the beginnings of family and social life are seen ; that brute parents will sacrifice themselves for their off- spring ; that when one of a pair is killed, the survivor will show a sense of bereavement ; that to many animals com- panionship with others, even not of their own species, is a visible source of pleasure. These are not merely curious facts ; they are facts of the most important significance for the true understanding of human life ; for they show us how deep the foundations of affection and therefore of morality are laid. The theologies that have talked so much to us of better worlds — that, as Matthew Arnold says, have "long fed(us) on boundless hopes" — have caused us to ignore this world, and the ample provision it makes for our moral life. For what is society among the brutes to society among men ? There we see but the rudiments, as it were, of those sentiments that in the life of humanity are destined to reach the perfection of their devel- opment, and which in some individuals of the human race, we might almost say, have already reached that perfection. True, T.> 2S A DEFENCE OP MODERN TTTOUOItT. there are wars amongst men — and no more potent breeder of wars than theology ever visited this earth — but wars are the natural results of ignorance and as yet untamed individualism. The starting-point of man was perfect ignorance and complete in- dividualism. Let us never forget tha.t little by little he is learning the true laws of life, learning to adapt himself to his environ- ment, and to live a wider than a merely individual existence. Shall we despair because everything is not done in a day? If it takes a thousand years to bring some trees to maturity, how long may we expect it to take to mould into perfect harmony all the complex elements of human existence ? In the ties and affections that grow out of family life, we see the force that has worked, and yet is working, the elevation of our race ; we see the leaven that yet will leaven the whole lump. I say that, were the theological beliefs of society to be sud- denly smitten, as with a blast, men would begin to think of these things, and of all the noble words that have been spoken and the nobler deeds that have been done with no help from supra-mundane hopes or fears, but in the mere native strength of humanity. There is a fine passage^ in the 6th volume of Merivale's " History of the Romans under the Empire," where the author pays a just tribute to the devotion and patriotism of many of the generals of the Empire, though serving under most unworthy masters and in an age of great corruption and licence. " Human nature," the historian goes on to say, " like running water, has a tendency to purify itself by action ; the daily wa'its of life call forth corresponding duties, and duties daily perforrrc T .ottlc into principles and ripen into graces." * * Loc. cii;. i ee ^88. I low much nobler a view of human nature this gives than thatWx.'«.U ts oi^dirurily presented in the pulpit! There is much of wisdom packed in the simple Lucretian phrase : " constietudo concinnat amorem." The distinct recognition by the ancients of duty as something I. J A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. 29 Id e e i. ■ H J We need bub to open our eyes in order to see and feel what treasures of moral force we have been trampling under our feet, at the bidding of a theology that teaches us to regard this life as a poor blighted thing, of value only as it may serve to pre- pare us for another state of being. At present whatever of good we discover in human nature we are told to attribute to a higher source ; whatever is in us of evil we are to consider all our own. Is it any wonder that, after the world has listened to such teaching fur centuries, and to hardly any other, there should exist grave doubts in men's minds as to whether the natural conditions of human life furnish any basis for mor- ality ? Kather is it matter for astonishment that there are still a few found to-day who dare to raise their testimony for poor depreciated human nature, who dare to trust it, who dare to say that, without any knowledge or any distinct hope of a life beyond, men might, on this earth, cultivate justice, love mercy, and walk in the light of truth. We have been considering what mankind would do if some unexpected disproof of all their most cherished theological be- iefs were suddenly presented ; and in doing so we have per- haps succeeded in showing what are our grounds of hope for the future of humanity. What men too aid do, under such circumstances, is what it would be well if they would set about doing now — namely, endeavouring to discover what are, in the normal conditions of human life, the springs of right and useful action. Let any one try to imagine what an enormous springing out of the ordinary conditions of human life stands in admirable contrast to much of the teaching of later Chiistian ages. Take for example a very familiar passage oi Cicero : " Nulla eidm vitae pars ne A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. kind into an abstract and absolute dogma that openings are left for criticism. And for lunate, 1 hold, it is that criticism does not shrink from her task. The successful building up of the dogma would be death to the spontaneous activity of the human mind in its search for what is highest and best. We see this clearly in the very stereotyped morality of those who have come most completely under the influence of dogma. The world is full of people who have lost all 7Horal origumlity^ so to speak. They have lost that which, according to an apostle, is the very test of spirituality, the power of judging all things; for they cannot judge anything as of themselves. Upon their minds dogma has had its perfect work, and a miserable result it shows. Let the mind, therefore, we say, weave freely for itself such conceptions as are for the moment most serviceable, and let it be free to modify them with the growth of knowledge and the increasing detiniteness of thought. The time may come when instead of straining our eyes upon an infinitely distant horizon for a mark by which to guide our course, we shall take our direction from things nigh at hand. Is it not written: "The word is very nigh thee, in thy heart and in thy mouth ? " What the word will be that shall dominate and inspire the further progress of society it might be rash to affirm : but as of old it will be a " word ot faith," a wonl that will sum- mon mankind to that strong belief which makes all things pos- sible. There are two great practical problems with which men of intellect may grapple to-day. One is how to put hack the thoughts of men so that all that was credible to their fore- fathers may be credible to them. The other is how to yut for- ward men's thoughts so that they may harmonize with the new knowledge the world has acquired — so that a new intel- lectual and moral equilibrium may be established. At the lirst Tf 40 A DEFENCE OF MODERN THOUGHT. II . 1 1^ of the setasks the priesthoods arc labouring, with many helpers from the ranks of the laity. In regard to many of these, both priests and laymen, one must testify that they have a true zeal for human welfare. Still, in spite of all the reactionary efforts made by men who are true, and by men who are not true, the intellectual standpoint of the world is shifting. Men do not believe as they once did, they cannot believe as they once did ; though they may religiously utter the old formulas, and close their eyes harder and harder against the growing light. The second cause has as yet bub few avowed helpers. There are scoffers enough in the world in all conscience. Thone who confess to one in private that they have ceased to believe what the churches teach are to be met everywhere ; they seem at times almost to outnumber the professors of orthodox opin- ions. But, when it is i question of openly advocating what they hold to be the truth, the great majority decline a respon- sibility so fraught with chances of social and public disfavor. One great reason ibr this timidity is, that hitherto it has not been seen how a new construction might rise upon the ruins of the old. To see this, however, all that is needed is to study closely the framework of things, and mark how society is actually put together, and how it has grown to- gether throughout the ages " by that which every joint sup- plieth." These pages have not been written solely for a con- troversial purpose. They have been written in the hope that some may be moved to assert for themselves a larger intellec- tual liberty, and that the great cause of putting forward men's thoughts, and preparing the new equilibrium, may in some humble measure be advanced.