2668 The Zoologist— Jdly, 1871. 



as are sometimes dubbed with titles, such as ' Systems of Scripture 

 Geology,' ' The Sacred Steps of Creation,' etc., are a disgrace, we do not 

 say to the sacred cause of Truth, for that cause has little or uothiug to do 

 with them, but to those whose names they bear, and are justly deserving of 

 the utter contempt with which scientific men treat them." — Preface, xi. 



Here we hare this tribe of literati painted by one of themselves. 

 Let not, however, the philosophical naturalist chuckle over the 

 castigation of his opponents, for assuredly there is a rod in pickle 

 for himself: let him read this : — 



" That the so-called several types or races of mankind have descended 

 from some half-dozen species "of monkey, is a speculation too puerile, too 

 foolish, too degrading, for any sane man really to believe and advocate. 

 Did the Bible utter such puerilities or sanction such baseless speculations, 

 we might have some good ground to question its truth, and to demur to its 

 conclusions. As compared with its simple utterances and godlike majesty 

 of statement, all such speculations sink beneath the lowest contempt. 

 What, tliough vaunting in philosophic garb, and emblazoned with lofty 

 titles, must be the mental degradation or the moral perversity, that can 

 prefer these gi-ovelling imbecilities to tlie rational and manly statement, 

 which even a heathen could appreciate and re-utter, that ' we are the 

 offspring of God.' "—Page 22. 



Then again, at p. 47, we find a theory on the subject of the 

 deluge stigmatized as " the supposition of grovelling ignorance." 

 From these powerful expressions, it is very manifest that between 

 the intemperate and injudicious orthodox on one hand, and the 

 scientific iconoclast on ihe other, Mr. Lucas has worked himself up 

 into a pretty considerable state of excitement. The " crudities 

 and vagaries" of the former, and the " grovelling imbecilities" and 

 " grovelling ignorance" of the latter, appear equally irritating. It 

 must be an open question whether this language is convincing in 

 proportion to its strength : if so, the hypothesis of our ape-origin 

 may be considered still in abeyance, for silence will be imposed on 

 both its advocates and opponents ^ but will either be convinced? 

 The too liberal use of fierce invective will, I think, be inefficient 

 against Mr. Darwin's calm and mild and dignified, though some- 

 times feeble, reasoning; it is like attacking the Peace Society with 

 fire and sword. 



With regard to the subject of the book, as implied by the title, 

 I have but little to say. Mr. Lucas seems to dispose of Bible 



