tain extent, modify the one-sided effects of physical predominance, and will so far do good, as it forces upon general recognition the fact that there is science which is not physical, and that, to say the least, it is to this non-physical science that precedence must be yielded even by the professors of physical science themselves. This is largely exemplified by the more recent teaching of Professor Huxley, as also by that of Mr. Herbert Spencer, Professor Tyndall, and Dr. Bence Jones.

Nevertheless, this idealism is as yet far from popular and widespread, and, in view of the rapid march of events, no time should be lost in forcing on the attention of the middle class in this country the great importance of forming a correct estimate of what share physical science can justly claim in social amelioration and education, lest by its hypertrophy a corresponding atrophy of other knowledge and of other yet more important well-being than the merely physical, should ensue.

Now it is undeniable that we not seldom meet with certain ambiguous popular phrases which are intended to express such aspirations as have been spoken of above, after "goodness" and "truth."

Thus there is a strong desire that education should be more "scientific," and as much as possible "unsectarian." The amelioration of the masses is to be accomplished by increasing their "welfare," aided by the promotion of "morality" not based on "theological dogmas," while, above all, those persons and those measures are to be encouraged which are found ticketed with the euphemistic title "liberal."

On the other hand, it is not expressly denied that a nation is in some sense an organic whole-not a mere herd of individuals. It is not denied that the merely animal wants of men are unfitted to be the highest object of desire for each, nor that the lowest mental processes are not the most deserving of cultivation. Again, it is not expressly denied that to act under a strong sense of God's supervision, and in accordance with what is believed to be His wiil, is the supreme duty, and, moreover, calculated to serve the highest interest of each citizen and of the entire nation.

Nevertheless we are convinced, and think we can make it plain, that the logical result of much popular teaching and the utterances of more than one popular leader of high standing and deserved eminence in certain fields, tend inevitably to reduce the nation to a herd, or rather chaos, of self-seeking units; tend to discourage self-denial, and to make willing subordination seem a Quixotic imbecility; tend to deprive moral aspiration at one and the same time of its highest aim and its highest sanction; tend to make men regard the gratification of their animal

wants as the "summum bonum "; while as to their reasoning faculties, they tend to dwarf the highest power of the intellect by the undue stimulation of its lower powers and activities.

We are also convinced, and also think we can make it plain, that these results are mainly, or in great part, owing to the misapprehension of the full meaning of terms, the generous instincts in the meantime urging on vigorous and immediate action, which cannot but more or less entirely fail of its aim, and produce dire mischief, in spite of the best intentions, owing to those very misapprehensions.

The modes of intellectual action at present employed to promote the good ends aimed at, are mainly three:-1. Magazine and newspaper articles; 2. Popular lectures to adults, and especially to working men; and, 3. The direct teaching given to children.

Neglecting for the present the teaching of the young, let us note certain utterances of popular teachers of high standing which appear to have met with a very wide acceptance.

Professor Tyndall, in his treatise on "The Constitution of Nature" (reprinted in his collected essays), to the question, "Was space furnished at once, by the fiat of Omnipotence, with these burning orbs?" replies:

To this question the man of science, if he confine himself within his own limits, will give no answer, though it must be remarked, that in the formation of an opinion he has better materials to guide him than anybody else. ("Fragments of Science," p. 6.)

In his address to the students of University College, he tells them that the poet of the future

Ought to be the interpreter of that power which, as "Jehovah, Jove, or Lord," has hitherto filled and strengthened the human heart. (Ibid., p. 106.) Again, in his paper on "Vitality," he remarks:

The most advanced philosophers of the present day declare that they ultimately arrive at a single source of power, from which all vital energy is derived; and the disquieting circumstance is that this source is not the direct fiat of a supernatural agent, but a reservoir of what, if we do not accept the creed of Zoroaster, must be regarded as inorganic force. (Ibid., p. 436.)

Moreover, all this shallow dogmatism is unaccompanied by one word of explanation as to the absence of any real, necessary conflict between the action of evolution itself and the conception of its results being absolutely and primarily due to the "fiat of a supernatural agent."

Once more, in his little work on the "Use and Limit of the Imagination in Science," he expresses himself thus :

Whence come we; whither go we? The question dies without an answer

-without even an echo-upon the infinite shores of the Unknown. * Let us follow matter to its utmost bounds; let us claim it in all its forms to experiment with and to speculate upon. Casting the term, "vital force" from our vocabulary, let us reduce, if we can, the visible phenomena of life to mechanical attractions and repulsions. Having thus exhausted physics and reached its very rim, the real mystery still looms beyond us. We have, in fact, made no step towards its solution. And thus it will ever loom-ever beyond the bourne of knowledge-compelling the philosophers of successive ages to confess that

"We are such stuff

As dreams are made of, and our little life

Is rounded with a sleep."

Finally, this popular physicist says of the theory of evolution :

Many who hold it would probably assent to the position that at the present moment all our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our art-Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and Raphael—are potential in the fires of the sun. We long to learn something of our origin. If the evolution hypothesis be correct, even this unsatisfied yearning must have come to us across the ages which separate the unconscious primeval mist from the consciousness of to-day. ("Fragments of Science," p. 163.)

What then is the creed, what are the lessons likely to be learned by young or inquiring minds amongst non-Catholics from this scientific catechism? What will be gathered from such passages as those referred to (which are not elsewhere retracted or explained away by their author), from that which they inevitably imply, as well as from that which they actually express? For while religious belief retains its social power in any country, those who attack it will mostly, more or less (like the infamous Voltaire), veil their hostility, and seek by implication, insinuation, or studied silence, to produce an effect far exceeding that openly aimed at by their express words.

As far as can be gathered from Professor Tyndall's wordsand we are anxious to state his views with the utmost fairness, his authoritative teaching may be thus formulated :

I. The professors of physical science, who are to be the supreme pontiffst of the future, are better qualified "than any

*It may not unreasonably be asked, how, if they are unknown, those shores can be known to be infinite.

+ Professor Tyndall has the honour of having the irrepressible M. Gambetta (M. Thiers' fou furieux) for a colleague in this promulgation. That eminently "liberal" politician exclaimed: "Faisons appel aux savants; qu'ils prennent l'initiative; ce sont eux qui peuvent hâter le plus puissamment notre restauration morale et nationale." (Speech delivered at Bordeaux on the 26th June, 1871.)

body else" to judge the highest questions of philosophy and religion, though the actual interpreters of the unknowable are to be the poets.

II. The duly instructed can no longer have their "hearts strengthened" by the conception of the First Cause as "Jehovah," or even as "Lord.”

III. The Patres Conscripti, or rather the Pontifices Maximi, have dogmatically defined and decreed that there is one " single source of power, from which all vital energy is derived". -an "inorganic force."

IV. The inquiry as to the origin and the end of human life is fruitless, and therefore the effort to discover our proper aim is an endeavour to solve what is hopelessly insoluble.

· V. Nevertheless we do come from a fire such as that of the sun, and love that charity which "thinketh no evil"; humility, piety, and holiness are essentially derived from heat, and are merely different "modes of motion."

Let us now turn to the teaching of him who is styled by Mr. Darwin "our great philosopher," namely, Mr. Herbert Spencer.*

In his "First Principles," this writer distinctly tells us that Theism is not only incredible but inconceivable (p. 43), and that "every form of religion" is not "even thinkable" (p. 46). In the place of God we are presented with "the unknowable"! To the very natural objection that thus an emotionless and "unthinkable abstraction" (p. 114) is offered to us, "instead

The various estimates of Mr. Herbert Spencer commonly met with, whether on the part of admirers and disciples, or whether on the parts of opponents, seem to us exceedingly exaggerated.

We have no wish to detract from the admiration due to one who has thought out for himself so much as Mr. Spencer has; but, at the same time, it must not be forgotten that he might have spared himself great labour, and have arrived at far more philosophical views, had he made himself acquainted with the labours of his predecessors. Mr. Spencer gives forth to the world as novelties errors both promulgated and refuted centuries ago. To Catholics it would be simply amusing, did not charity make it also painful, to see how he solemnly enunciates, as wonderful discoveries, partial truths, perfectly familiar to Catholic theologians, but which, being divorced from other truths complementary to them, become the most pernicious errors. In spite, however, of much mischief effected by this writer, he is none the less indirectly an instrument for good and for the promotion of the Catholic faith. He is this, inasmuch as, with but a slight modification, his system might be made to harmonize with theology, while, even in its unmodified state, it is a powerful solvent of those crude and illogical forms of belief on which so many repose in a false security. It is much to be regretted that Mr. Spencer remains profoundly ignorant of Catholic theology, which contains all the philosophical truths he advances, together with the others necessary for their completion.

of a Power which we can regard as having some sympathy with us," we are quietly and coolly told, "this kind of protest of necessity accompanies every change from a lower creed to a higher."

"No mental revolution can be accomplished without more or less of laceration." The same writer, in an article in the "Fortnightly Review" for April, 1871, makes clear his belief that our highest aspirations after holiness, and our love of eternal goodness and beauty, are nothing but modified brutal instincts of the lowest kind, developed by experience and utility. Altogether the teaching of "our great philosopher" comprises the following dogmas :

I. Theism is false and absurd.

II. Rewards and punishments in a future life are the delusions of superstition.

III. Prayer is an absurdity, as there is no God having any personal sympathy with us.

IV. There is no difference of kind, but only of degree, between the intellect of a sage or the emotions of a saint, and the psychical faculties of a mud-fish.

V. There is no such thing as free will, no man having any more real option, as to his thoughts and intentions, than has a leaf to resist the action of the wind.

If Mr. Spencer is more or less extensively esteemed as a teacher, a far more general acceptance is enjoyed by that eminently popular naturalist Professor Huxley, who has of late wandered beyond his special subjects of exposition into the wider fields of ethics, politics, and metaphysics. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of a teaching followed and accepted with so much avidity by a large section of the middle and lower classes, and it will be well to consider carefully the dicta put forth by so popular an authority,-an authority, moreover, by no means relying upon the power of persuasion or the force of truth, but ready, as soon as practicable, to call in the aid of the "secular arm to give effect to the anathemas of a "scientific syllabus." In Professor Huxley's Lay Sermons the following passages

Occur:

I say that natural knowledge, seeking to satisfy natural wants, has found the ideas which can alone still spiritual cravings. (p. 14.)

The Gospel enunciated by the Professor, is, after all, anything but "good tidings." He tells us:

In this sadness, this consciousness of the limitation of man, this sense of an open secret which he cannot penetrate, lies the essence of all religion. (p. 15.)

The familiar phrase "serious views" is very inadequate to