270 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



undulatory theory might effectually twit the holder of it on his change 

 of front. " This ether of yours," he might say, " alters its style with 

 every change of service. Starting as a beggar, with scarcely a rag of 

 ' property ' to cover its bones, it turns up as a prince when large under- 

 takings are wanted. You had some show of reason when, with the 

 case of sound before. you, you assumed your ether to be a gas in the 

 last extremity of attenuation. But, now that new service is rendered 

 necessary b}^ new facts, you drop the beggar's rags, and accomplish 

 an undertaking, great and princely enough in all conscience ; for it 

 implies that not only planets of enormous weight, but comets with 

 hardly any weight at all, fly through your hypothetical solid without 

 perceptible loss of motion." This would sound very cogent, but it 

 would be very vain. Equally vain, in my opinion, is Mr. Martineau's 

 contention that we are not justified in modifying, in accordance with 

 advancing knowledge, our notions of matter. 



Before parting from Prof. Knight, let me commend his courage as 

 well as his insight. We have heard much of late of the peril to mo- 

 rality involved in the decay of religious belief. What Mr, Knight says 

 under this head is worthy of all respect and attention : 



" I admit that, were it proved that the moral faculty was derived as well as 

 developed, its present decisions would not be invalidated. The child of experi- 

 ence has a father whose teachings are grave, peremptory, and august ; and an earth- 

 born rule may be as stringent as any derived from a celestial soxu'ce. It does 

 not even follow that a belief in the material origin of spiritual existence, accom- 

 panied by a corresponding decay of belief in immortality, must necessarily lead 

 to a relaxation of tlie moral fibre of the race. It is certain that it has often 

 done so.' But it is equally certain that there have been individuals, and great 

 historical communities, in which the absence of the latter belief has neither 

 weakened moral earnestness nor prevented devotional fervor." 



I have elsewhere stated that some of the best men of my acquaint- 

 ance — men lofty in thought and beneficent in act — belong to a class 

 who assiduously let the belief referred to alone. They derive from it 

 neither stimulus nor inspiration, while — I say it with regret — were I 

 in quest of persons who, in regard to the finer endowments of human 

 character, are to be ranked among the unendowed, I should find some 

 characteristic samples among the noisier defenders of the orthodox 

 belief. These, however, are but " hand-specimens " on both sides ; the 

 wider data referred to by Prof. Knight constitute, therefore, a welcome 

 corroboration of my experience. Again, my excellent critic, Prof. 

 Blackie, describes Buddha as being " a great deal more than a prophet ; 

 a rare, exceptional, and altogether transcendental incarnation of moral 

 perfection." * And yet, " what Buddha preached was a gospel of pure 



' Is tbis really certain? Instead of standing in the relation of cause and effect, may 

 not the "decay" and "relaxation" be merely coexistent — both, perhaps, flowing from 

 common historic antecedents ? 



2 "Natural History of Atheism," p. 136. 



