1876.] Biological Controversy and its Laws . 205 
public as a thorough believer in God.” Along with this 
passage we take the remarks on “ Mr. Winwood Reade, a 
friend and ardent disciple of Mr. Darwin,” and on the 
teachings of “ our English physical expositors ” (pp. 393 to 
395), and then ask whether the author is not, by implication 
at least, charging Mr. Darwin with atheism ? This is the 
more probable as we can find no saving clause, or limitation 
guarding against such a construction being put upon these 
passages. Still, in a charge so grave the accused is entitled 
to the benefit of the faintest doubt, and Mr. Mivart may 
therefore claim a verdict of “ Not proven.” It is time, 
however, that we came to a full understanding about the 
foul practice of introducing charges of atheism in scientific 
controversy. On this subject we beg to offer the following 
considerations 
(1.) Charges of “ heresy,” “ infidelity,” or “ atheism ” are 
beside the question. If a theory in astronomy, in geology, 
in physics, chemistry, or biology is in doubt, let it be judged 
on its own evidence ; that is, let it be compared respectively 
with astronomical, geological, physical, chemical, or biolo- 
gical faCts, and, according as it is able or unable to account 
for and to harmonise such, let it stand or fall. The man 
who is unable or unwilling to do this convicts himself, from 
an intellectual point of view, either of impotence or perversity, 
and should leave controversy to others. 
(2.) Such charges, further, are delusive. Not to speak of 
the thoroughly trained scholar, even many of the “ half- 
educated ” know that almost every important discovery in 
Science has been denounced by the “ parti pretre ” as impious, 
heretical, and atheistic. A yearly volume of the “ Quarterly 
Journal of Science ” would not contain the abuse uttered by 
ecclesiastics against the Copernican theory of the solar 
system, against the doCtrine of a plurality of worlds, the 
Newtonian view of the universe, the nebular hypothesis, the 
chronology of modern geologists, &c. Yet all these views, 
and many more which might be mentioned, were found — • 
when passion had cooled and sober judgment had time to 
decide — perfectly compatible, not with theism merely, but 
with Christian revelation. What “ the Church ” has cursed 
in one generation she “ assimilates ” in the next. What 
educated man, then, after reviewing the past, can dare to set 
aside modern theories in such a manner ? 
(3.) Such charges are, further, distinctly immoral, and 
even criminal. All civilised countries brand with ignominy 
the suitor or the advocate who suborns false witnesses, forges 
or destroys documents, or corrupts judges and juries. But 
