1

seventeenth chapter in The Riddle, upon 'Science and Christianity,' it is not necessary to say much here. That the replies to it should, however, be all dismissed as 'this dust-throwing and mudthrowing,' is but a typical example of the constant reiteration of this writer's favourite metaphor. The style of Dr. Loofs as a controversialist may leave something to be desired, from the standpoint of the Christian spirit, but two things must be pointed out with unflinching plainness. First, that even in this respect, Professor Loofs's issue will bear thorough comparison with Mr. McCabe's booklet; whilst as to what Professor Haeckel terms 'the remarkable work of the learned and acute English theologian Saladin' (Stewart Ross), and says openly 'I myself build for the most part on this source,'1 the style of Dr. Loofs is as 'mellow music' matched with

the dragons of the prime

That tare each other in their slime,

when put side by side with this writer's Jehova's gesammelte Werke. Yet, secondly, the real question is not as to verbal 'mud-throwing' on the part of any one, but simply whether Haeckel's alleged historical representations concerning Christ and Christianity are true. And for that, so far as regards Loofs, every honest reader may be left to judge for himself. So that if 'dust-throwing' is to be thought about in this connexion, a more real instance of it cannot be conceived than to attempt

1 V. Anti-Haeckel, English edition, pp. 74, 75.

to cover up the utter exposure of Haeckel's falsities, by the assertion that Dr. Loofs's attack 'is one of the most disgraceful episodes of this dreary controversy.'1 Certainly there is nothing 'dreary' in the virulence of the pages of Haeckel's English champion.

Whilst, however, one can scarcely appreciate the 'modesty' of general sneers at the 'descent from the level of science to the level of Christian Evidence lecturing,' it is not until we come to 'personalities' that the meekness of our ex-Romish Professor does itself justice. It is, alas! inevitable, in the interests of truth, that we should cast a passing glance at these.

Mr. McCabe informs the world that he has 'waded through the turgid flood of criticisms' called forth by Haeckel's works, and finds 'nothing half so insulting and offensive in Haeckel' as in these. Other readers must be left to form their own judgement upon the facts-seeing that, in his reply, this author appears unable to controvert a single writer without more or less of personal contumely. In every single case it is either definitely asserted or manifestly implied, that the speaker or writer who differs from him is either fool or knave. Dr. Horton early comes under his lash. Readers are informed that (10) 'his audience were shaking with suppressed laughter'

2

Haeckel's Critics Answered, p. 86.

p. 112.

The further references to pages are put in brackets.

"As I do not wish to obtrude personal matters upon the reader, and yet it seems necessary for the truth's sake to estimate the quality of this writer's many and pointed references to myself, such notice as they merit will be found in a note at the end of this section.

while he preached to 'his trustful congregation'— that is, he made such a fool of himself in doing so. He is pronounced twice as offensive as Haeckel. His 'insincere rhetoric' (62) does not merit discussion; but (100) he 'has a title to leniency, because of his obvious ignorance of the entire subject.' Mr. Ambrose Pope (a double University graduate) only perpetrates 'a stale joke' (70) in attempting to criticize Haeckel, and 'a grosser travesty of his system it would be difficult to conceive' (53). Mr. Rhondda Williams, who had the temerity to preach upon the subject to 'his weaver admirers' (72), is simply guilty of 'eagerness to score rhetorical points' (26), and only illustrates 'his essential confusion' (31); his 'storm-cloud of rhetoric would be called clever from the intellectual point of view, but by a different name from the moral standpoint' (53, 54). The reader is commiserated over Mr. Williams's 'petty quibble and pedantic effort' (55), issuing, as it does (56), only in a 'farrago of rhetoric,' and composed of 'plausible arguments that he has borrowed' (79). Dr. Dallinger has performed, it seems, a wonderful gymnastic feat, with which one would scarcely have credited so careful a scientist. He has 'skipped from bourneless immensity to finiteness' (32), quite 'in a slovenly fashion' (24). Lord Kelvin has been 'guilty of the gravest impropriety' (109) in speaking of 'creative power'; and in daring to use the phrase 'fortuitous concourse of atoms' (72), he has displayed 'a grave piece of insincerity or else ignorance'-i.e. in plain English he is, as

above stated, either a fool or a hypocrite. Dr. Iverach, having presumed to write upon these matters, is especially foolish. He is (45) 'one of those hesitating teachers who are continually criticizing scientific results with some vague notion of serving religion'; but (37) 'the old Adam is still strong in him, and he is keen on gaps,' and, moreover (36), 'he does raise much dust as he goes along.' (This writer's fondness for 'dust' as a metaphor, is really an interesting, not to say amusing, psychological phenomenon.) He assists (53) to 'raise a medley of small points and irrelevant difficulties' (51), but in the end only displays (79) 'the inanity of his assertion.' Mr. John Fiske1 is but the author of 'petty and petulant criticism, which is one of the mysteries of religious controversy' (66). Mr. R. J. Campbell, of the City Temple, who has dared to mention these subjects in public, is (81) not only 'bewilderingly inconsistent,' but also guilty of malignant and dishonourable tactics' (94); so that he affords an admirable objectlesson as to the ignorance of preachers in comparison with the knowledge of their critics. The involved. 'modesty' is too delicious to miss. 'We see, at a glance, how little he knows of all the moral codes and what they have done. We who watch the advance of comparative religion and ethics, and of the criticism of the New Testament, know what will eventually' happen (96). Dr. J. Orr, of Glasgow, has ventured to say that a number of secularist

cf. Through Nature to God, p. 144.

leaders have become Christian (122). But his 'miserable effusion' only means that he does not know the difference between truth and falsehood. Concerning the three names mentioned, viz. Joseph Barker, Thomas Cooper, and G. J. Romanes, 'the former two,' we are told (122), 'were of no intellectual standing, and are hardly termed leaders.' Those who were personally acquainted with them will best know how to estimate this sneer. But as regards Romanes, more is to be noted. 'As he says, it was by the sacrifice of his intellect, by ignoring his scientific temperament, by an effort of will, that he succeeded in assenting to what he calls "pure agnosticism." Note this from a writer who, with virtuous and fiery indignation, reiterates the demand for 'scrupulous honesty!' Now by the side of the above 'as he says,' let us put the actual words of Romanes, leaving the reader to the fuller perusal of his Thoughts on Religion:

In my youth I published an essay which excited a good deal of interest at the time, and has been long out of print. In that treatise I have since come to see that I was wrong touching what I constituted the basal argument for my negative conclusion. Therefore I now feel it obligatory on me to publish the following result of my maturer thought from the same standpoint of pure reason. Even though I have obtained no further light from the side of intuition, I have from that of intellect.1

Whilst as to 'agnosticism,' not only did Professor Romanes aver that

Modern agnosticism is performing this great service to Christian faith: it is silencing all rational scepticism of the a priori kind';

1

1 p. 111.

2 Thoughts on Religion, p. 166.