Mr. Buckles Fallacies. 169 



tury ; but, since the embryological discoveries of 

 the Germans, it is held in a form different from 

 that in which it was held before. The followers 

 of Spencer, Lewes, and Darwin do not put the 

 same interpretation upon the law of development 

 that the followers of Lamarck did, forty years 

 ago. Coming now to the very complex subject of 

 morality, we find, unfortunately for Mr. Buckle, 

 that the acceptation in which its propositions are 

 held varies with every phase of civilization. 

 Among the American Indians, so noted for their 

 revengeful dispositions, the obligation not to take 

 life, if recognized, was not so construed as to in 

 clude the miserable object of the fell passion. 

 Among the ancient Jews, the command &quot; Thou 

 shalt not kill &quot; meant &quot; Thou shalt not kill Jews ; &quot; 

 and, from the story of Saul and Agag, we may 

 suppose that the murder of Gentiles was consid 

 ered rather a meritorious act than otherwise. 

 And in general, where the same &quot; moral truths &quot; 

 have been received, it has been in as many differ 

 ent ways as there were different kinds of people 

 to receive them. This fact, that the way in which 

 generally received truths are understood varies as 

 the complexity of the sciences to which they be 

 long, results from the obvious circumstance that 

 the more complex a science is, the less we know 



