i863 FOUR POSSIBILITIES 263 



it seems to me, I obey the rule which works so well in practice, 

 of always making the simplest possible suppositions. 



On the other hand, if you are of a different opinion, and 

 find it more convenient to call the x which underlies (hypothetic- 

 ally) mental phenomena. Soul, and the x which underlies (hypo- 

 thetically) physical phenomena, Body, well and good. The two- 

 fluid theory and the one-fluid theory of electricity both ac- 

 counted for the phenomena up to a certain extent, and both 

 were probably wrong. So it may be with the theories that there 

 is only one x in nature or two x's or three x's. 



For, if you will think upon it, there are only four possible 

 ontological hypotheses now that Polytheism is dead. 



I. There is no ;r = Atheism on Berkeleyan prin- 



ciples. 

 II. There is only one x = Materialism or Pantheism, 



according as you turn it 

 heads or tails. 



III. There are two x's ) o , 



Spirit and Matter [= Speculators mcertcB sedis. 



IV. There are three x's ) r\ ^i. j tl 1 ■ 



God, Souls, Matter [ = O^^odox Theologians. 



To say that I adopt any one of those hypotheses, as a repre- 

 sentation of fact, would to my mind be absurd; but No. 2 is the 

 one I can work with best. To return to my metaphor, it chimes 

 in better with the rules of the game of nature than any other 

 of the four possibilities, to my mind. 



But who knows when the great Banker may sweep away 

 table and cards and all, and set us learning a new game ? What 

 will become of all my poor counters then ? It may turn out 

 that I am quite wrong, and that there are no x's or 20 x's. 



I am glad you appreciate the rich absurdities of the new doc- 

 trine of spontogenesis [?]. Against the doctrine of spontane- 

 ous generation in the abstract I have nothing to say. Indeed it 

 is a necessary corollary from Darwin's views if legitimately car- 

 ried out, and I think Owen smites him (Darwin) fairly for 

 taking refuge in " Pentateuchal " phraseology when he ought 

 to have done one of two things — (a) give up the problem, {b) 

 admit the necessity of spontaneous generation. It is the very 

 passage in Darwin's book to which, as he knows right well, I 

 have always strongly objected. The x of science and the x of 

 genesis are two different x's, and for any sake don't let us con- 

 fuse them together. Maurice has sent me his book. I have 

 18 



