AN EPISCOPAL TRILOGY 197 



conversion, and others unmistakably anxious to spur me to the 

 expression of wrathful antagonism — favour me with reports or 

 copies of such productions." 



The Duke's assertions are shown in detail to be perfectly 

 groundless, and a candid opinion given of his scientific 

 accuracy : — 



" In the course of his doubtless well-meant admonitions, the 

 Duke of Argyll commits himself to a greater number of state- 

 ments which are demonstrably inaccurate, and which any one 

 who ventured to write upon the subject ought to have known to 

 be incorrect, than I have ever seen gathered together in so small 

 a space. . . . The most considerable difference I note among 

 men is not in their readiness to fall into error, but in their readi- 

 ness to acknowledge these inevitable lapses. The Duke of 

 Argyll has now a splendid opportunity for proving to the world 

 in which of these categories it is hereafter to rank him." 



This ended Huxley's part in this particular controversy, 

 for in a subsequent article the Duke failed to take advan- 

 tage of the "splendid opportunity" oiFered. Turning 

 now to the first part of the " Trilogy," we find this 

 essay owes its name to the fact that at the British 

 Association in Manchester (1887) the Bishops of Carlisle, 

 Bedford and Manchester all gave sermons in which the 

 claims of science were treated with conspicuous fair- 

 ness : — - 



" It is impossible to read the discourses of the three prelates 

 without being impressed by the knowledge which they display, 

 and by the spirit of equity, I might say of generosity, towards 

 science which pervades them. There is no trace of that tacit 

 or open assumption that the rejection of theological dogmas, on 

 scientific grounds, is due to moral perversity, which is the 

 ordinary note of ecclesiastical homilies on this subject, and 

 which makes them look so supremely silly to men whose lives 

 have been spent in wrestling with these questions. There is no 

 attempt to hide away real stumbling-blocks under rhetorical 

 stucco ; no resort to the tu quoque device of setting, scientific 



