1880.] A Change of Front . 561 
science ? According to the author a naturalist has no right, 
“upon the strength of investigations purely physical, to 
deny the existence of moral order, or of beneficence as an 
attribute of the Creator, if a Creator there be.” Such 
denial, he contends, is an overstepping of the boundary. 
I must here draw a distinction : the denial of beneficence 
in the Creator, on the strength of scientific researches, is 
doubtless illegitimate, and may be viewed as atheistic. But 
so long as the naturalist merely denies that he can find indi- 
cations of such beneficence in the mutual relations of the 
organic world, he is, as it seems to me, on his own side of 
the frontier. And now for the converse transgression to that 
which the Bishop signalises. An author, knowing or be- 
lieving from revelation, or from a priori considerations, that 
there exists a moral order in the universe, and that the 
Creator is beneficent, proceeds to use this belief as a datum 
in discussing the origin of species. If Ernst Haeckel 
crosses the legitimate boundary of physical science from the 
one side, so assuredly does Mr. H. B. Baildon from the 
other. 
In marking out the frontier line which we are considering 
the Bishop of Carlisle insists, further, that physical science 
does not include the study of man, save “ as a creature 
having certain material attributes, and leaving certain mate- 
rial marks of his existence in past ages.” The science of 
necessity, he continues, “ leaves out of consideration all 
that is most interesting to man or which makes man most 
interesting.” Hence we are warranted in inferring that 
he would exclude from the domain of physical science all 
inquiries into man’s moral nature, and would count attempts 
to explain the origin of our ethical codes as illegitimate. . 
But now comes the great difficulty : if a full consideration 
of one animal species— Homo sapiens — is not within the 
competence of Science, how is it with others ? If one part 
of Nature is relegated to the sphere of the metaphysician 
or the theologian, what of the rest ? The Bishop’s reply is 
substantially that man is not an animal, not a part of 
Nature. “ Putting aside all questions of immortality, it is 
not difficult to conclude that mankind possess attributes 
which do not belong to other creatures, and which make it 
necessary, in examining the world, to put man in a class by 
himself. 
Here, then, all agreement ends. Whilst fully admitting 
the principle of a boundary line* I must hold man as an 
* See Journal of Science, passim. 
2Q3 
