BIGOTRY IN SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY. 325 



cussion of scientific questions formally dedicated to a dignitary of 

 the Catholic Church as a vindicator of the rights of conscience (!), 

 we may well ask, not jeeringly but sadly, " What is truth ?" We 

 have witnessed of late brilliant progress in various departments of 

 science ; but we have also seen attacks made upon the very foun- 

 dations of science. These onslaughts are increasing in frequency 

 and in boldness. Metaphysicians and ecclesiastics are calling in 

 question the inductive method, impugning the independence of Sci- 

 ence, and seeking to reassert over her the authority of " the Church." 

 The battles of the sixteenth century seem about to be repeated. 

 And some, who might claim to be the heirs of Galileo, think it no 

 ignominy to wear the livery of Bellarmin and Caccini. 



When we first opened the book which has suggested our present 

 article we fully expected to find an intellectual treat of the highest 

 order: its subject is one on which a most valuable work miffht well 

 be written, and few living men, indeed, are better qualified to un- 

 dertake such a task than is Mr. Mivart. Anti-Darwinian polemics 

 we awaited, but such criticism, if conducted on legitimate that is, 

 on purely scientific principles, we should be among the first to 

 welcome, well knowing that in any issue Science must be the gainer. 

 Although believing in Evolution, we have never given to the hypoth- 

 esis commonly known as " Darwinism " more than a qualified and pro- 

 visional adhesion. While admitting that it has thrown a flood of light 

 over some of the most difficult questions in natural history, and has 

 brought into vital connection a previously incoherent mob of facts, 

 and that it is still a jx>werful and valuable instrument in the hands 

 of the inquirer, we cannot forget that it has its difficulties. Some of 

 these we have, on former occasions, endeavored to point out. Hence 

 we should cordially recognize any theory which should either supple- 

 ment the doctrines of " Natural Selection " and " Sexual Selection," 

 or modify them so as to get rid of their drawbacks and shortcomings. 

 Nay, we should be Avell pleased to find them superseded altogether by 

 a new hypothesis, adapted at once to the phenomena they have ex- 

 plained and the residues and anomalies which they have hitherto left 

 unsolved. Such an hypothesis we thought Mr. Mivart might have 

 produced, or at least have attempted ; and the very attempt could 

 scarcely be made, from a legitimate point of view, without leading to 

 valuable results. Never were we more signally disappointed, although 

 in these days the title of a book is often intended to conceal, rather 

 than to reveal, its nature and object. The strange dedication was, in 

 truth, but too ominous of the contents. The work we found was not 

 constructive, but destructive. It consists of a series of attacks upon 

 a number of men who have done good service in different branches 

 of science, such as Dnrwin, Wallace, Huxley, Tyndall, Galton, Lub- 

 bock, Helmholtz, Oscar Schmidt or who have dealt with method- 

 ology, such as Comte, Mill, Spencer, Lewes, etc. The doctrines of 



