788 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



light of the facts adduced by Darwin and of his own maturer reason- 

 ings, 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 ? Was there not a lay delegate 

 who could have done it ; or were they all bishop, clergy, and laymen 

 equally in the dark ? It would really seem so. Who can wonder 

 that the doctrine of evolution does not make much progress in certain 

 quarters ? 



Sir Charles Lyell unfortunately is not the only author misrepre- 

 sented. 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 

 philosophic faith in the probability of spontaneous generation." Surely 

 his lordship could 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 lan- 

 guage 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 ques- 

 tion 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 unthink- 

 able and unknowable." Here, again, inaccuracies of language. An 

 idea may be unthinkable in the sense of not admitting of being thought 

 out, but can an idea be said to be " unknowable " ? What is an un- 

 knowable 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 according 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 unthink- 

 able and unknowable." 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 evolution helps 

 agnosticism to regard " the idea of God as unthinkable and unknow- 

 able," we shall only find the confusion growing worse confounded. 



* His lordshfp means " discredited not only by Huxley, but by etc." 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. 



