But "methinks the lady doth protest too much." Were these denunciations more dispassionate they might seem more disinterested. As it is, they are too strenuous to be forcible; too loud to be effective. Nor is this the worst. They have another fault more fatal still. They are altogether irrelevant. They do not hit, they merely miss, the mark. They are beside the question. For the question is as to the nature and character of the new doctrine. And with that question the merits or demerits of advocates and assailants are not concerned. "Materialistic Atheism," we are told, "is in the air." So be it: but then this same materialistic atheism is either true or it is not. If it is not true, let that be shown, and it will fall without assailants. If it is true, let that be shown, and it will then have no need of advocates. No one thinks it necessary to take the field in defence of the properties of conic sections; and the foundations of the venerable pons asinorum remain unmoved and unimpaired from age to age. Why then, in propounding that very open secret, their latest discovery, should the demigods of the scientific Olympus forsake their philosophic calm for the irritating gusts of irascible acerbity?

Tantæne animis cœlestibus iræ ?

They make their boast of truth. They proclaim aloud their contempt of consequences. The boast would have been more becoming if it had been less exclusive. Those who make it will have a better claim to be heard when they have learned, with the modesty of science, to moderate the pretensions by which they arrogate to themselves a monopoly of the virtue which they say is theirs. When they tell us that "Mr. Charles Darwin, the Abraham of scientific men," is "a scholar as obedient to the command of truth as was the patriarch to the command of God," we are under no necessity, as we certainly have no inclination, to dispute the accuracy of the assertion. But when to this it is added that to reject Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, and those of his coadjutors and commentators, is "to purchase intellectual peace at the price of intellectual death," we ask for the evidence in support of this assertion. That evidence has yet to be produced. Is it producible? It is at all events not forthcoming. Until the truth of these hypotheses has been established it is not possible, in the name of truth, to demand our acceptance of them. And until then, as always, our position in relation to 1 Fortnightly Review, vol. xxii. p. 615. 2 "The Belfast Address," ut sup., p. 63.

them must be determined, as it is now determined, by that paramount consideration, our reverence for truth.

The necessity of meeting this conviction is not unfelt by those to whom it is opposed; and their perception of its force is shown by the remarkable admission contained in their reply. It is the ideal Lucretian himself who is the speaker :

"It is not to the point to say that the views of Lucretius and Bruno, of Darwin and Spencer may be wrong. Here I should agree with you, deeming it indeed certain that these views will undergo modification. But the point is, that whether right or wrong, we ask the freedom to discuss them."1 "As regards these questions science claims unrestricted right of search." 2

Agreed. We desire nothing better. The case must be argued before it is decided. And it may not be prejudged. What is certain is, "that the views of Lucretius and Bruno, of Darwin and Spencer may be wrong": "certain that these views will undergo modification." Certain therefore that "the world,-even the clerical world,”-in accepting these wrong views, "has for the most part" gone wrong too, and,

1 "The Belfast Address," ut sup., p. 64.
2 Ibid., p. 63.

sooner or later, not without harm and loss, will have to return from the error of its ways.

Meantime, the inquiry to which we are challenged, though not without complex relations, is in itself very simple. It is not to be influenced by opinion. It is not to be biassed by prejudice. It is not to be decided by authority. It is directed to the investigation of facts. It must be guided, not by great names, but by great principles. It must be kept distinct from other, though collateral, inquiries; and it must be patiently pursued to no uncertain issue. This Materialistic Atheism, propounded in the name of Science: Is it true? Is it demonstrable? Is it Scientific?

CHAPTER II.

EVOLUTION.