APPENDIX. got 



I have abandoned the belief it embodies. Clear proof is at 

 hand. If Prof. Birks will turn to the " Replies to Criticisms/' 

 contained in the third volume of my Essays: Scientific, Politi- 

 cal and Speculative, (pp. 334-337) he will find that I have 

 there defended the above proposition against a previous attack; 

 and assigning, as I have done, justification for it, I have shown 

 no sign of relinquishing it. Why, then, Prof. Birks will ask, 

 did I make the change in question? Had his mental attitude 

 been other than it is, he might readily have divined the reason. 

 Knowing, as he seemingly does, that this doctrine which he 

 criticizes had been already criticized in a similar manner (for 

 otherwise he would scarcely have discovered the change I 

 have made), he might have seen clearly enough that the pas- 

 sage was suppressed simply to deprive opponents of the oppor- 

 tunity of evading the general argument of the chapter by 

 opening a side issue on a point not essential to its argument. 



The chapter has for its subject, certain incapacities of the 

 human mind — a subject, by the way, on which theologians 

 are never tired of enlarging when it suits their own purpose, 

 but on which an antagonist may not enlarge without exciting 

 their anger. Various examples of these incapacities are given, 

 to justify and enforce the conclusion drawn. Among these 

 was originally included the example in question. Misrepre- 

 senting it as Prof. Birks misrepresents it, another writer had 

 before him similarly based on his misrepresentation sundry 

 animadversions. Though still regarding the statement I had 

 actually made (not the one ascribed to me) as valid, I con- 

 cluded that it would be best to remove the stumbling-block 

 out of the way of future readers; and therefore decided to 

 replace the illustration by another. The rest of the chapter 

 remains exactly as it was, and its argument is not in the re- 

 motest degree affected by this substitution. Nevertheless, 

 Prof. Birks, wrongly describing the nature of the illustration, 

 and wrongly attributing the removal of the illustration to 

 change in my belief, also wrongly conveys the impression that 

 the doctrine which the illustration contained had some vital 

 connection with the general argument of the chapter and with 

 the doctrine of the work; and by conveying this impression 

 calls forth exultation from religious periodicals. 



Were I to deal with Prof. Birks' book page by page, a 

 much larger book than his would be required to expose his 

 mis-statements, perversions, confusions. The above exam- 

 ples must suffice. I will add only that in one belief of his I 

 40 



