220 G. MACLOSKIE, D.SC, ETC., ON COMMON ERKOKS 



from his opinions. It rarely happens that one man can see 

 all the bearings of the facts or theories on which his mind 

 is occupied ; and a single investigator rarely completes a 

 subject of his research. It is by the publication of his ideas 

 that others are able to confirm or confute him. To prevent 

 unverified publication would have killed much of Sir Isaac 

 Newton's Avork, as it Avas nearly two centuries after his time 

 that the necessary rectification arrived. His errors were in 

 many instances suggestive of further researches which led 

 to the true explanation of phenomena. 



The constant appeal to verifications is characteristic of 

 scientific theory. What is called the Higher Criticism in 

 Literature is weak in this respect, at least as to its positiA^e 

 side of emendations and distributing fragments to hypo- 

 thetical authors. Richard Bentley gave an object lesson of 

 his method in his emendation of Milton, an imaginary editor 

 included, Avhich to us non-critical people would seem quite 

 as justifiable as his revision of Horace, or as others' parcelling 

 out Moses and explaining the peculiarities of the Bible by a 

 naturalistic quasi-cA^olution. Out of scA^eral possible theories 

 about the origin of a book, the tests for determining which 

 is the right AaeAv are rarely aA^ailable ; and the scientific 

 method is to regard hypotheses as only hypothetical until we 

 can verify them by tangible CAndence. 



4. The enemies as well as the friends of religion are 

 sometimes inclined to regard every novel scientific doctrine 

 as necessarily atheistical. Some hail the new dogma as a 

 weapon of destruction, others denounce it as perilous ; and 

 both parties appeal to each other for confirmation of the 

 opinioTi that the ncAV dogma and the old faith cannot co- 

 exist. Three-quarters of a century ago most of the English 

 clergy thought that Geology Avas dangercms to men's religion, 

 and even geologists like Lyell Avere of the same opinion. 

 Since that time we haA^e come to the conclusion that the 

 geologists were right as to their science, and the humanists 

 Avere wrong, and that there is nothing specially Avicked in 

 the discoveries of the former. 



5. A A'cry foolish and sinful practice is that of taking flings 

 at the departments of science that are subjects of popular 

 suspicion. A learned professor recently assailed Geology on 

 the heavy charge that Avithin the last century the geologists 

 have changed thuir vieAvs two hvmdred times. He might 

 have truthfully said two thousand times: but ho ought to 

 have been ashamed to make such a charge, especially in 



