233 
influence is exerted on man's religious ideas by tbe aspects of 
external nature. On tbe contrary, I firmly believe that they 
have contributed greatly to their modification. But this is not 
enough for Mr. Buckle. They must create them. 
I was not aware that everything in India was so great 
and terrible; nor, although Greece is a small country, that 
the whole aspects of nature in it were feeble. Earthquakes 
were certainly not unusual in Greece ; I should have thought 
far more frequent than in India. India is a very large country 
compared with Greece ; but, owing to the difficulties of locomo- 
tion, I do not see how its vastness could have been deeply 
impressed on the minds of its inhabitants. Compared with its 
size, Greece is certainly a vastly more mountainous country 
than India. Dangers of all kinds were in the early ages 
abundant enough in Greece. Its mythic personages are 
described as the destroyers of wild beasts and noxious 
animals. The Himalayas are doubtless three times as lofty 
as the Greek mountains; but as they are situated in the 
north of India, and the great bulk of her population has 
always inhabited the great plains of her rivers, it is very 
unfortunate for Mr. Buckle's theory that they have been 
invisible to nine-tenths of her population. Mr. Buckle 
invents a theory, and then the facts to support it. Mountain- 
ous scenery must have been a subject of contemplation to 
a large proportion of the Grecian race ; and if the contempla- 
tion of it has had any influence on the relative dimensions of 
gods in Greece and India, those of the former country ought to 
have been of far more gigantic proportions than those of the 
latter. But the contrary is the fact. If volcanic phenomena 
have exerted a potent influence on religion, Italy is certainly a 
far more volcanic country than India, far more subject to 
earthquakes, and the religious development ought to vary in 
proportion. What shall we say of some regions of South 
America, where these phenomena are of constant occurrence ? 
The whole of Mr. Buckle's errors are owing to his having 
started with a theory, to which it was necessary that the facts 
should be made to square. If true, it would save us from the 
trouble of a vast amount of painful investigation. Such 
theorizing is an original sin of the human mind. It is no 
peculiarity of any one class of thinkers. It behoves theolo- 
gians watchfully and prayerfully to guard against it, no less 
than philosophers and men of science. It is not only mis- 
chievous in its false assumptions, but it poisons what is true in 
their respective systems. 
I can hardly resist the temptation to enter on another most 
important portion of Mr. Buckle's philosophy of history— the 
relationship in which the development of man's intellect and 
