'If a man of science seeks to dogmatize concerning the emotions and the will, and asserts that he can reduce them to atomic forces and motions, he is exhibiting the smallness of his conceptions, and gibbeting himself as a laughing-stock to future generations.'

SIR OLIVER LODGE, Hibbert Journal, January, 1905, p. 319.

'A man who fancies that he can dictate a complete system to the world only shows that he is arrogant to the verge of insanity.'

SIR LESLIE STEPHEN, An Agnostic's Apology, p. 366.

'Is it credible that such a mushroom knowledge, such a growth overnight as this, can represent more than the minutest glimpse of what the universe will really prove to be when adequately understood? No! our science is a drop, our ignorance a sea. Whatever else be certain, this at least is certain-that the world of our present natural knowledge is enveloped in a larger world of some sort, of whose residual properties we at present can form no positive idea.'

PROFESSOR W. JAMES, The Will to Believe, p. 54.

'Empörend ist est aber, wie Haeckel diese Dinge behandelt. Mit vollen Händen streut er seinen Lesern Sand in die Augen. Was man bisher nur hoffen und wünschen oder höchstens als wahrscheinliche Hypothese gelten lassen kann, erscheint bei ihm im Gewande absoluter Notwendigkeit. Er schreibt für ein grösseres Publikum, das den Stand der wissenschaftlichen Probleme nicht kennt.'

PROFESSOR ADICKES, Kant contra Haeckel, p. 100.

I

A LESSON IN MODESTY-BY EXAMPLE

WITH the concluding words of the preceding section in one's ears, it may seem not only painful, but unnecessary, to proceed to a detailed examination of instances in which the very opposite spirit makes itself manifest. When, however, we find one of the most vigorous of recent polemics against the Christian faith, commencing its assault by an appeal to the people on the ground of its superior 'modesty and controversial manners, the examination of its claims in this respect becomes definitely important. It has been said that most persons are ready to believe any statement when it has been made three times. In which case the readers of Haeckel's works, as lauded and magnified by his self-appointed English champion, must be super-abundantly persuaded that not only all the knowledge, but all the sincerity and courtesy, are on the anti-Christian side. This, if it were substantiated, would be a serious charge against the ethics of faith. The creation of a popular impression is not seldom as easy as it is serious. The author of Haeckel's Critics Answered does not hesitate to say that

there are tens of thousands of lower middle-class readers in England who can read Haeckel more intelligently than the majority of the Catholic clergy.' At the same time we are also informed that the Romish clergy 'have had more definite philosophical instruction than their Protestant colleagues.' Whence the inference is manifestly intended, that the Churches, taken as a whole, are in a parlous condition so far as intelligence is concerned. For if the teachers are blind, how can the pupils see? This, one would think, is a sufficiently 'modest' suggestion at the outset.

But it is an ephemeral trifle, by comparison with the phraseology in which Haeckelian monism is introduced to the modern British public by its apt and eager translator. He is not, however, responsible for the 'modesty' exhibited in the first and smallest of the three works of Professor Haeckel, mentioned above. The Confession of Faith of a Man of Science is really the nucleus of all that follows, and is in itself quite sufficient as a summary statement of the author's monism. It can scarcely be deemed the most modest or courteous way of pointing out the phylogenetic results of recent science, to assert that it is only the ignorant or narrow-minded who can now doubt their truth,' especially when we reflect that the famous German pathologist, Virchow, is involved in this condemnation. But it is quite consistent with this, as a keynote, to be soon after informed, in regard to the belief in 1 p. 39.

personal immortality, that 'if any antiquated school of purely speculative psychology still continues to uphold this irrational dogma, the fact can only be regarded as a deplorable anachronism.'1 One might meekly suggest that the late Dr. Momerie was as well acquainted with logic as Professor Haeckel is with biology. But it would doubtless avail nothing in dealing with the 'modesty' which affirms 2 not only that the 'conception of a personal devil has already been given up once for all by all persons of education,' but that 'the beautiful dream of God's goodness in nature no longer finds credit now at least among educated people who think.'

It is perhaps only natural that Strauss should be extolled as a 'clear-sighted author' and 'the greatest theologian of our century,' so as to throw up into fitting contrast the short-sightedness almost inconceivable' of Du Bois Reymond's 'well-known Ignorabimus address on the "boundaries of natural knowledge," in 1872.' But it must be surely a peculiarly noteworthy expression from one who styles himself the 'modest guide' of his readers, when they are informed that his particular confession of faith in Monism is shared by'all men of science who possess sufficient acquaintance with science; sufficient acuteness of judgement; sufficient moral courage; and sufficient strength of mind to free themselves from religious prejudices.' Of a truth, if this 'pronouncement '-to quote Mr. McCabe 3 Wonders of Life, p. 470. Confession, p. 60.

Confession, p. 54. 2 pp. 70, 74.

4

-'is fragrant with modesty, we shall need to reconsider our moral terminology.'

But it becomes really necessary, seeing that Haeckel's champion is never tired of representing him as the innocent victim of unmeasured religious abuse, to look carefully into his larger works, if we would appreciate the 'manner in which he pursues and expounds his speculations.' 1

Glancing first at generalities, we are assured at the commencement that it is not about mediaeval theology that he is troubled, but that 'in the church of a liberal Protestant minister, who has a good average education, we hear ideas on the nature of God, of the world, of man, and of life, which are directly opposed to all scientific experience.' So that it is no wonder that physicists and chemists, doctors and philosophers, who have made a thorough study of nature, refuse a hearing to such preachers.' ' In accordance with this estimate is the later suggestion, that any impartial scholar must admit that the crude notion of an eternal life is not a comfort but a fearful menace to the best of men. Only want of clear judgement and consecutive thought can dispute it.' From this it is an easy step to the mild assertion that Strauss's last work 'is a magnificent expression of the honest conviction of all educated people of the present day, who understand the unavoidable conflict between the discredited dominant doctrines of Christianity,

เ