EDITOR'S TABLE. 



70 ] 



the new sense better fits lately dis- 

 covered facts. The point, however, 

 is not one which we care to discuss 

 at length; and if the learned pro- 

 fessor says that the Hebrew lexicon 

 should be revised from time to time, 

 so as to keep it abreast of modern 

 physical science, we see no reason to 

 object. Let the authorities on Se- 

 mitic philology look to it. 



It is admitted by the writer to 

 whom we are referring that evolu- 

 tion compels us to " view types and 

 design in a new light." Types are 

 not to be considered as " artificial 

 models to which all actual cases must 

 more or less closely conform." We 

 must rather look on them as M the 

 generalized results of variations dur- 

 ing past generations, the accumu- 

 lated effects of growth and varia- 

 tions somehow or other acquired in 

 the past and, we know not why, per- 

 sisting by heredity." They are not, 

 he distinctly says, " a stamp im- 

 pressed from without." As to the 

 manifestations of design, we must re- 

 gard them as "dependent on some 

 internal qualities by which organ- 

 isms became accommodated to the 

 exigencies of their place in the 

 world." The choice is presented to 

 them, we are told, of becoming so 

 accommodated or perishing ; some 

 manage the accommodation and 

 some perish. It is needless to say 

 that there is very little left here of 

 the old and venerable doctrine of de- 

 sign, and that in the account above 

 given of type the classical idea is 

 equally attenuated. There is, never- 

 theless, we are assured, no reason 

 why we should not "regard all 

 these phenomena as illustrating the 

 method of divine creation and gov- 

 ernment." 



Coming down to particular theo- 

 logical doctrines, the writer claims 

 that they may one and all be held 

 consistently with a full acceptance 

 of the evolutionary standpoint ; and 



here again we have no desire what- 

 ever to dispute his contention. What 

 science demands above all things is 

 intellectual sincerity and integrity. 

 Science in its infinite variety inter- 

 ests different minds in many differ- 

 ent ways; and he who has the true 

 scientific spirit will, so far as the or- 

 der of facts in which he is especially 

 interested is concerned, follow to the 

 very best of his ability a rigorous 

 scientific method. In other regions 

 of thought or speculation he may be 

 less exacting as to proof and more 

 disposed to indulge what Bagehot 

 called " the emotion of belief." Sci- 

 ence grows by what is done for her 

 in different fields by men who them- 

 selves may be widely at variance 

 with one another as regards large 

 sections of their thought. It is 

 therefore unwise for any one to at- 

 tempt to set up, in the name of sci- 

 ence, one scheme of opinion upon all 

 subjects for all classes of minds. We 

 have known, or at least heard of, 

 graceless zealots of materialism who 

 called in question Faraday's claims 

 to be a true man of science because 

 he did not carry the inductive meth- 

 od into questions of religious belief. 

 It is fortunate that the interests of 

 science are not committed to the 

 hands of such ; for no possible rigor 

 of method could make amends for 

 the incurable narrowness of their 

 imagination. 



Science, we have said, demands in- 

 tellectual integrity, and it rests with 

 each individual, upon his own re- 

 sponsibility as an individual, to sat- 

 isfy its demands. Science means 

 truth; it exists to establish and ad- 

 vance truth, to build up in the world 

 a coherent system of doctrine valua- 

 ble for the guidance of human life 

 and the further enlargement of hu- 

 man thought. It is not for one 

 worker unnecessarily to judge an- 

 other, or to impugn his fidelity to 

 the great cause to which all owe a 



