468 Doctrine of Development. [October, 
What is all this but the old stale sneer which for ages has 
been levelled against every inventor and discoverer, who is 
taunted with setting himself up to be wiser than all the 
eminent men of the past ! But Mr. Morris “ double-banks” 
the fallacy. None of the distinguished men he mentions 
are biologists at all, and therefore, as far as the subject is 
concerned, they are all immeasurably inferior in knowledge 
and attainments to Mr. Darwin. Further, there is the 
gratuitous assumption that Mr. Darwin, as an Evolu- 
tionist, must necessarily rejeCt the Bible. We know many 
Evolutionists who unhesitatingly accept the Bible as a 
moral and spiritual revelation, though they do not manipu- 
late it into a geological text-book, or believe in the human 
traditions — chronological especially — which have sprung up 
around it. But Mr. Morris not merely accuses Mr. Darwin 
of Infidelity, but, if we do not misunderstand him, of a 
formal and conscious Infidel propagandism. “ I have done 
all I could to make others as wretched as I am myself.” 
“ I do my little best or worst to shake their faith,” &c. 
Need we put on record our solemn conviction that the aims 
of Mr. Darwin, Mr. Wallace, and of the majority of the 
naturalists of the new school, have been purely biological, 
and that to furnish arguments to the Infidel was no part of 
their plans ? Need we remind Mr. Morris that charges 
closely analogous to those which he insinuates against Mr. 
Darwin were brought against Sir Isaac Newton, and with 
quite as much plausibility ? Need we repeat that he who 
thinks to decide a scientific controversy by such foul play 
forfeits, ipso facto, all claim to the treatment of a gentleman 
and a scholar, and should at once be handed over to a very 
different court than that of the reviewer ? 
As a “ supplement ” to his curious collection of imputa- 
tions and travesties, Mr. Morris gives certain extracts from 
the daily papers ! We should have hoped that every man 
of science in England, or rather in Europe, must be fully 
aware of the gross blunders made by political and literary 
journals whenever they condescend to discuss a scientific 
question. One daily paper not long ago informed the world 
that “all gases explode far below redness, leaving nothing 
but a few particles of dust.” A journal that displayed such 
ignorance on a question of history, of law, or of theology, 
would be well-nigh laughed out of existence. But an error 
in physics, or chemistry, or biology is detected by few, and 
therefore the proprietors of political papers do not think it 
worth their trouble to refer the criticism of a scientific 
treatise or a presidential address before the British Associa- 
