for this discourse was the report of a sermon by Canon Liddon, in which that eminent preacher spoke of catastrophes as the antithesis of physical law, yet possible inasmuch as a "lower law" may be "suspended" by the "intervention of a higher," a mode of reasoning which he applied to the possibility of miracles such as that of Cana.

The man of science was up in arms against this incarnation of abstract terms, and offered a solemn protest against that modern recrudescence of ancient realism which speaks of "laws of nature" as though they were independent entities, agents, and efficient causes of that which happens, instead of simply our name for observed successions of facts.

Carefully as all personalities had been avoided in this article, it called forth a lively reply from the Duke of Argyll, rebuking him for venturing to criticise the preacher, whose name was now brought forward for the first time, and raising a number of other questions, philosophical, geological, and biological, to which Huxley rejoined with some selections from the authentic history of these points in "Science and Pseudo-Science" ("Nineteenth Century" April 1887, "Collected Essays" 5 90-125).

Moreover, judging from the vivacity of the duke's reply that some of the shafts of the first article must have struck nearer home than the pulpit of St. Paul's, he was induced to read "The Reign of Law," the second chapter of which, dealing with the nature of "Law," he now criticised sharply as] "a sort of 'summa' of pseudo-scientific philosophy," [with its confusions of law and necessity, law and force,] "law in the sense, not merely of a rule, but of a cause." [(Cf. his treatment of the subject 24 years before, volume 1.)

He wound up with some banter upon the Duke's picture of a scientific Reign of Terror, whereby, it seemed, all men of science were compelled to accept the Darwinian faith, and against which Huxley himself was preparing to rebel, as if:--]

Forsooth, I am supposed to be waiting for the signal of "revolt," which some fiery spirits among these young men are to raise before I dare express my real opinions concerning questions about which we older men had to fight in the teeth of fierce public opposition and obloquy--of something which might almost justify even the grandiloquent epithet of a Reign of Terror--before our excellent successors had left school.

[Here for a while the debate ceased. But in the September number of the "Nineteenth Century" the Duke of Argyll returned to the fray with an article called "A Great Lesson," in which he attempted to offer evidence in support of his assertions concerning the scientific reign of terror. The two chief pieces of evidence adduced were Bathybius and Dr. (now Sir J.) Murray's theory of coral reefs. The former was instanced as a blunder due to the desire of finding support for the Darwinian theory in the existence of this widespread primordial life; the latter as a case in which a new theory had been systematically burked, for fear of damaging the infallibility of Darwin, who had propounded a different theory of coral reefs!

Huxley's reply to this was contained in the latter half of an article which appeared in the "Nineteenth Century" for November 1887, under the title of "Science and the Bishops" (reprinted both in "Controverted Questions" and in the "Collected Essays" 5 126, as "An Episcopal Trilogy"). Preaching at Manchester this autumn, during the meeting of the British Association, the Bishops of Carlisle, Bedford, and Manchester had spoken of science not only with knowledge, but in the spirit of equity and generosity.] "These sermons," [he exclaims,] "are what the Germans call Epochemachend!"

How often was it my fate [he continues], a quarter of a century ago, to see the whole artillery of the pulpit brought to bear upon the doctrine of evolution and its supporters! Any one unaccustomed to the amenities of ecclesiastical controversy would have thought we were too wicked to be permitted to live.

[After thus welcoming these episcopal advances, he once more repudiated the a priori argument against the efficacy of prayer, the theme of one of the three sermons, and then proceeded to discuss another sermon of a dignitary of the Church, which had been sent to him by an unknown correspondent, for] "there seems to be an impression abroad--I do not desire to give any countenance to it--that I am fond of reading sermons."

[Now this preacher was of a very different mind from the three bishops. Instead of dwelling upon the "supreme importance of the purely spiritual in our faith," he warned his hearers against dropping off any of the miraculous integument of their religion. "Christianity is essentially miraculous, and falls to the ground if miracles be impossible." He was uncompromisingly opposed to any accommodation with advancing knowledge, or with the high standard of veracity, enforced by the nature of their pursuits, in which Huxley found the only difference between scientific men and any other class of the community.

But it was not merely this misrepresentation of science on its speculative side which Huxley deplored; he was roused to indignation by an attack on its morality. The preacher reiterated the charge brought forward in the "Great Lesson," that Dr. Murray's theory of coral reefs had been actually suppressed for two years, and that by the advice of those who accepted it, for fear of upsetting the infallibility of the great master.

Hereupon he turned in downright earnest upon the originator of the assertion, who, he considered, had no more than the amateur's knowledge of the subject. A plain statement of the facts was refutation enough. The new theories, he pointed out, had been widely discussed; they had been adopted by some geologists, although Darwin himself had not been converted, and after careful and prolonged re-examination of the question, Professor Dana, the greatest living authority on coral reefs, had rejected them. As Professor Judd said, "If this be a 'conspiracy of silence,' where, alas! can the geological speculator seek for fame?" Any warning not to publish in haste was but advice to a still unknown man not to attack a seemingly well-established theory without making sure of his ground. (Letter in "Nature.")

As for the Bathybius myth, Huxley pointed out that his announcement of the discovery had been simply a statement of the actual facts, and that so far from seeing in it a confirmation of Darwinian hypotheses, he was careful to warn his readers] "to keep the questions of fact and the questions of interpretation well apart." "That which interested me in the matter," he says, "was the apparent analogy of Bathybius with other well-known forms of lower life,"..."if Bathybius were brought up alive from the bottom of the Atlantic to-morrow, the fact would not have the slightest bearing, that I can discern, upon Mr. Darwin's speculations, or upon any of the disputed problems of biology." [And as for his] "eating the leek" [afterwards, his ironical account of it is an instance of how the adoption of a plain, straightforward course can be described without egotism.]

The most considerable difference I note among men [he concludes] is not in their readiness to fall into error, but in their readiness to acknowledge these inevitable lapses.

[As the Duke in a subsequent article did not unequivocally withdraw his statements, Huxley declined to continue public controversy with him.

Three years later, writing (October 10, 1890) to Sir J. Donnelly apropos of an article by Mr. Mallock in the "Nineteenth Century," which made use of the "Bathybius myth," he says:--]

Bathybius is far too convenient a stick to beat this dog with to be ever given up, however many lies may be needful to make the weapon effectual.

I told the whole story in my reply to the Duke of Argyll, but of course the pack give tongue just as loudly as ever. Clerically-minded people cannot be accurate, even the liberals.

[I give here the letter sent to the "unknown correspondent" in question, who had called his attention to the fourth of these sermons.]

4 Marlborough Place, September 30, 1887.

I have but just returned to England after two months' absence, and in the course of clearing off a vast accumulation of letters, I have come upon yours.

The Duke of Argyll has been making capital out of the same circumstances as those referred to by the Bishop. I believe that the interpretation put upon the facts by both is wholly misleading and erroneous.

It is quite preposterous to suppose that the men of science of this or any other country have the slightest disposition to support any view which may have been enunciated by one of their colleagues, however distinguished, if good grounds are shown for believing it to be erroneous.

When Mr. Murray arrived at his conclusions I have no doubt he was advised to make his ground sure before he attacked a generalisation which appeared so well founded as that of Mr. Darwin respecting coral reefs.

If he had consulted me I should have given him that advice myself, for his own sake. And whoever advised him, in that sense, in my opinion did wisely.

But the theologians cannot get it out of their heads, that as they have creeds, to which they must stick at all hazards, so have the men of science. There is no more ridiculous delusion. We, at any rate, hold ourselves morally bound to "try all things and hold fast to that which is good"; and among public benefactors, we reckon him who explodes old error, as next in rank to him who discovers new truth.

You are at liberty to make any use you please of this letter.

[Two letters on kindred subjects may appropriately follow in this place. Thanking M. Henri Gadeau de Kerville for his "Causeries sur le Transformisme," he writes (February 1):--]

Dear Sir,

Accept my best thanks for your interesting "causeries," which seem to me to give a very clear view of the present state of the evolution doctrine as applied to biology.

There is a statement on page 87 "Apres sa mort Lamarck fut completement oublie," which may be true for France but certainly is not so for England. From 1830 onwards for more than forty years Lyell's "Principles of Geology" was one of the most widely read scientific books in this country, and it contains an elaborate criticism of Lamarck's views. Moreover, they were largely debated during the controversies which arose out of the publication of the "Vestiges of Creation" in 1844 or thereabouts. We are certainly not guilty of any neglect of Lamarck on this side of the Channel.