305 
me question the general character of the references which the author has 
made, as to whether they had been fully verified : “ There are those who 
stand midway between atheists and theists, like Professor Tyndall, and 
content themselves with a sort of ideal Deity of their own composition ; 
while others, like Herbert Spencer, are unable to make up their minds 
as to the existence of a God or not." Now, if one thing is more certain 
than another, it is that Herbert Spencer maintains in his philosophy that 
the conception of a God as first cause is an actual necessity of thought. 
Such is the unquestionable opinion of Herbert Spencer. It is abundantly 
borne out by the cosmical philosophy of Mr. Fisk, which I have just been 
reading, who is a devout disciple of Herbert Spencer. When I took up 
this paper I had been writing, as part of my lecture for Norwich 
Cathedral, a comparison between John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer ; 
Mill denying that the principle of causation affords any proof of the 
existence of a God, and Herbert Spencer distinctly affirming that a first 
cause to the universe is a necessity of thought. On the question of ancient 
philosophy the Christian Fathers are quoted, and among others Justin, as 
being authorities as to the tenets of the ancient Greek philosophers. Now, 
you cannot rely on worse authorities. Several of the Fathers were very 
desirous of forcing the Greek philosophers into a sort of advocacy of Chris- 
tianity. If you wish to get at the real opinions of the Greek philosophers you 
cannot rely on guides who are more untrustworthy. We know that they 
were anxious to get the ancient philosophers into Egypt, in order that they 
might bring them into contact with the ideas in the Old Testament ; but there 
is a very general disbelief that many of them ever visited that country. 
Nothing can be more doubtful than the evidence on which this rests. Again, 
in sec. 24, there is another reference to the authority of the Fathers. It is 
many years since I have read Aristotle’s Treatise on the Soul, but I recollect 
his observations on it in the Ethics. This is what Mr. Savile gives us, in 
reference to the assertions of Aristotle : — “ Likewise, respecting the soul, 
while Plato says it consists of three parts, including the faculties of reason, 
affection, and appetite, Aristotle declares the soul is not so comprehensive, 
but only includes reason. 7 In the Ethics the contrary is most distinctly 
affirmed. I do not accuse the author of this paper of misrepresenting the 
bathers, but I say this merely to show you that such references to them are 
worthless and misleading. If we wish to have the real opinions of those 
ancient philosophers, the proper mode would be to refer to the statements of 
those great authorities, or to the philosophers themselves, instead of taking 
these of the Fathers, which cannot be relied upon. I am aware that there 
is considerable doubt about the Aristotelian canon ; but it has been fully 
discussed in several of the greatest modern works, such as of Grote, 
Lewis, and others. Grote has found considerable difficulty in determining it. 
In the time of Cicero it is clear that other works must have been attributed 
to Aristotle than those which we now possess, for Cicero speaks of the great- 
pleasantness of his style, and that is certainly not its characteristic in the 
