40 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



these mental and moral facts. That I deny ; 

 just as much as I should deny that a chem- 

 ical analysis of the body could ever lead to an 

 explanation of the physical organism. Then, 

 says the professor, when I have traced out the 

 molecular facts, I have built up a physical theory 

 of moral phenomena. That again I deny. I say 

 there is no such thing, or no rational thing, that 

 can be called a physical theory of moral phenom- 

 ena, any more than there is a moral theory 

 of physical phenomena. What sort of a thing 

 would be a physical theory of history — history 

 explained by the influence of climate or the like ? 

 The issue between us centres in this : I say that 

 the physical side of moral phenomena bears 

 about the same part in the moral sciences that 

 the facts about climate bear in the sum of human 

 civilization. And that to look to the physical 

 facts as an explanation of the moral, or even as 

 an independent branch of the study of moral 

 facts, is perfectly idle ; just as it would be if a 

 mere physical geographer pretended to give us, 

 out of his geography, a climatic philosophy of 

 history. Yet, Prof. Huxley has not been deterred 

 from the astounding paradox of proposing to 

 us a physiological theory of religion. He tells 

 us how "the religious feelings maybe brought 

 within the range of physiological inquiry." And 

 he proposes as a problem — " What diseased viscus 

 may have been responsible for the 'priest in ab- 

 solution ? '" I will drop all epithets ; but I must 

 say that I call that materialism, and materialism 

 not very nice of its kind. One might as reason- 

 ably propose as a problem — What barometrical 

 readings are responsible for the British Constitu- 

 tion ? and suggest a congress of meteorologists 

 to do the work of Hallam, Stubbs, and Freeman. 

 No doubt there is some connection between the 

 House of Commons and the English climate, and 

 so there is no doubt some connection between 

 religious theories and physical organs. But to 

 talk of "bringing religion within the range of 

 physiological inquiry 1 ' is simply to stare through 

 the wrong end of the telescope, and to turn phi- 

 losophy and science upside down. Ah ! Prof. 

 Huxley, this is a bad day's work for scientific 

 progress — 



77 Kev yrjBrio'ai Xlpla/j-os, TIpid^oi6 re ira7oes. 

 Pope Pius and his people will be glad when they 

 read that fatal sentence of yours. When I com- 

 plained of the " attempt to dispose of the deep- 

 est moral truths of human nature on a bare physi- 

 cal or physiological basis," I could not have ex- 

 pected to read such an illustration of my mean- 

 ing by Prof. Huxley. 



Perhaps he will permit me to inform him 

 (since that is the style which he affects) that 

 there once was — and, indeed, we may say still is 

 — an institution called the Catholic Church ; that 

 it has had a long and strange history, and subtile 

 influences of all kinds ; and I venture to think 

 that Prof. Huxley may learn more about the 

 priest in absolution by a few weeks' study of the 

 Catholic system than by inspecting the diseased 

 viscera of the whole human race. When Prof. 

 Huxley's historical and religious studies " have 

 advanced so far as to enable him to explain " the 

 history of Catholicism, I think he will admit 

 that " priestcraft " cannot well be made a chap- 

 ter in a physiological manual. It may be cheap 

 pulpit thunder, but this idea of his of inspecting 

 a " diseased viscus " is precisely what I meant 

 by " biological reasoning about spiritual things." 

 And I stand by it, that it is just as false in science 

 as it is deleterious in morals. It is an attempt 

 (I will not say arrogant, I am inclined to use an- 

 other epithet) to explain, by physical observa- 

 tions, what can only be explained by the most 

 subtile moral, sociological, and historical observa- 

 tions. It is to think you can find the golden eggs 

 by cutting up the goose, instead of watching the 

 goose to see where she lays the eggs. 



I am quite aware that Prof. Huxley has else- 

 where formulated his belief that biology is the 

 science which " includes man and all his ways 

 and works." If history, law, politics, morals, 

 and political economy, are merely branches of 

 biology, we shall want new dictionaries indeed ; 

 and biology will embrace about four-fifths of hu- 

 man knowledge. But this is not a question of 

 language ; for we here have Prof. Huxley actual- 

 ly bringing religion within the range of physio- 

 logical inquiry, and settling its problems by ref- 

 erences to "diseased viscus." But the differences 

 between us are a long story ; aud since Prof. 

 Huxley has sought me out, and in somewhat 

 monitorial tone has proposed to set me right, I 

 will take an early occasion to try and set forth 

 what I find paradoxical iu his notions of the rela- 

 tions of biology and philosophy. 



I note a few special points between us, and I 

 have done. Prof. Huxley is so well satisfied 

 with his idea of a " physical theory of moral 

 phenomena," that he constantly attributes that 

 sense to my words, though I carefully guarded 

 my language from such a construction. Thus he 

 quotes from me a passage beginning, " Man is 

 one, however compound," but he breaks off the 

 quotation just as I go on to speak of the direct 

 analysis of mental and moral faculties by mental 



