physical and moral phenomena is an explanation of the human organism. Professor Huxley says that, and I call it materialism. Nor do I say that 'spiritual sensibility is a bodily function.' I say, it is a moral function; and I complain that Professor Huxley ignores the distinction between moral and physical functions of the human organism.

As to the distinction between anatomy and physiology, if he will look at my words again, he will see that I use these terms with perfect accuracy. Six lines below the passage he quotes, I speak of the human mechanism being only explained by a 'complete anatomy and biology,' showing that anatomy is merely one of the instruments of biology.

He might be surprised to hear that he does not himself give an accurate definition of physiology. But so it is. He says: Physiology is the science which treats of the functions of the living organism. Not so, for the finest spiritual sensibility is, as Professor Huxley admits, a function of a living organism; and physiology is not the science which treats of the spiritual sensibilities. They belong to moral science. There are mental, moral, affective functions of the living organism; and they are not within the province of physiology. Physiology is the science which treats of the bodily functions of the living organism; as Professor Huxley says in his admirable Elementary Lessons, it deals with the facts concerning the action of the body.' I complain of the pseudo-science which drops that distinction for a minute. He says: The explanation of a physiological function is the demonstration of the connection of that function with the molecular state of the organ which exerts the function.' That I dispute. It is only a small part of the explanation. The explanation substantially is the demonstration of the laws and all the conditions of the function. The explanation of the circulation of the blood is the demonstration of all its laws, modes, and conditions; and the molecular antecedents of it are but a small part of the explanation. The principal part relates to the molar (and not the molecular) action of the heart and other organs. The function of motion is explained,' he says, 'when the movements of the living body are found to have cer

cedents are but a part of these conditions. The main part of the explanation, again, deals with molar, not molecular, states of certain organs. The function of sensation is explained,' says Professor Huxley, 'when the molecular changes, which are the invariable antecedents of sensations, are discovered.' Not a bit of it. The function of sensation is only explained when the laws and conditions of sensation are demonstrated. And the main part of this demonstration will come from direct observation of the sensitive organism organically, and by no molecular discovery whatever. All this is precisely the materialism which I condemn; the fancying that one science. can do the work of another, and that any molecular discovery can dispense with direct study of organisms in their organic, social, mental, and moral aspects. Will Professor Huxley say that the function of this Symposium is explained, when we have chemically analysed the solids and liquids which are now effecting molecular change in our respective digestive apparatus? If so, let us ask the butler if he cannot produce us a less heady and more mellow vintage. What irritated viscus is responsible for the Materialist in Philosophy? We shall all philosophise aright, if our friend Tyndall can hit for us the exact chemical formula for our drinks.

It does not surprise me, so much as it might, to find Professor Huxley slipping nto really inaccurate definitions in physiology, when I remember that hallucination of his about questions of science all becoming questions of molecular physics. The molecular facts are valuable enough; but we are getting molecularmad, if we forget that molecular facts have only a special part in physiology, and hardly any part at all in sociology, history, morals, and politics; though I quite agree that there is no single fact in social, moral, or mental philosophy, that has not its correspondence in some molecular fact, if we only could know it. All human things undoubtedly depend on, and are certainly connected with, the

general laws of the solar system. And to say that questions of human organisms, much less of human society, tend to become questions of molecular physics, is exactly the kind of confusion it would be, if I said that questions of history tend to become questions of astronomy, and that the more refined calculations of planetary movements in the future will explain to us the causes of the English Rebellion and the French Revolution.

There is an odd instance of this confusion of thought at the close of Professor Huxley's paper, which [still more oddly Lord Blachford, who is so strict in his logic, cites with approval. Has a stone a future life,' says Professor Huxley, because the wavelets it may cause in the sea persist through space and time?' Well! has a stone a life at all? because if it has no present life, I cannot see why it should have a future life. How is any reasoning about the inorganic world to help us here in reasoning about the organic world? Professor Huxley and Lord Blachford might as well ask if a stone is capable of civilisation because I said that man was. I think that man is wholly different from a stone; and from a fiddle; and even from a dog; and that to say that a man cannot exert any influence on other men after his death, because a dog cannot, or because a fiddle, or because a stone cannot, may be to reproduce with rather needless affectation the verbal quibbles and pitfalls which Socrates and the sophists prepared for each other in some wordy symposium of old.

Lastly, Professor Huxley seems to think that he has disposed of 'me altogether, so soon as he can point to a sympathy between theologians and myself. I trust there is great affinity and great sympathy between us; and pray let him not think that I am in the least ashamed of that common ground. Positivism has quite as much sympathy with the genuine theologian as it has with the scientific specialist. The former may be working on a wrong intellectual basis, and often it may be by most perverted methods; but in the best types, he has a high social aim and a great moral cause to maintain amongst men. The latter is usually right in his intellectual basis as far as it goes; but it does not go very

far, and in the great moral cause of the spiritual destinies of men he is often content with utter indifference and simple nihilism. Mere raving at priestcraft, and beadles, and outward investments, is indeed a poor solution of the mighty problems of the human soul and of social organisation. And the instinct of the mass of mankind will long reject a biology which has nothing for these but a sneer. It will not do for Professor Huxley to say that he is only a poor biologist and careth for none of these things. His biology, however, 'includes man and all his ways and works.' Besides, he is a leader in Israel; he has preached an entire volume of Lay Sermons; and he has waged many a war with theologians and philosophers on religious and philosophic problems. What, if I may ask him, is his own religion and his own philosophy? He says that he knows no scientific men who neglect all philosophical and religious synthesis.' In that he is fortunate in his circle of acquaintance. But since he is so earnest in asking me questions, let me ask him to tell the world what is his own synthesis of philosophy, what is his own idea of religion? He can laugh at the worship of Priests and Positivists: whom, or what, does he worship? If he dislikes the word Soul, does he think man has anything that can be called a spiritual nature? If he derides my idea of a Future life, does he think that there is anything which can be said of a man, when his carcase is laid beneath the sod, beyond a simple final Vale?

P.S.-And now space fails me to reply to the appeals of so many critics. I cannot enter with Mr. Roden Noel on that great question of the materialisation of the spirits of the dead; I know not whether we shall be 'made one with the great Elohim, or angels of Nature, or if we shall grovel in dead material bodily life.' I know nothing of this high matter: I do not comprehend this language. Nor can I add anything to what I have said on that sense of personality which Lord Selborne and Canon Barry so eloquently press on me. sense of personality is a thing of somewhat slow growth, resulting from our entire nervous organisation and our composite mental constitution. It seems to

To me that

me that we can often trace it building up and trace it again decaying away. We feel ourselves to be men, because we have human bodies and human minds. Is that not enough? Has the baby of an hour this sense of personality? Are you sure that a dog or an elephant has not got it? Then has the baby no soul? has the dog a soul? Do you know more of your neighbor, apart from inference, than you know of the dog? Again, I cannot enter upon Mr. Greg's beautiful reflections, save to point out how largely he supports me. He shows, I think with masterly logic, how difficult it is to fit this new notion of a glorified activity on to the old orthodoxy of beatific ecstasy. Canon Barry reminds us how this orthodoxy involved the resurrection of the body, and the same difficulty has driven Mr. Roden Noel to suggest that the material world itself may be the debris of the just made perfect. But Dr. Ward, as might be expected, falls back on the beatific ecstasy as conceived by the mystics of the thirteenth century. No word here about moral activity and the social converse, as in the Elysian fields, imagined by philosophers of less orthodox severity.

One word more. If my language has given any believer pain, I regret it sin

cerely. It may have been somewhat obscure, since it has been so widely arraigned, and I think misconceived. My position is this. The idea of a glorified energy in an ampler life is an idea utterly incompatible with exact thought, one which evaporates in contradictions, in phrases which when pressed have no meaning. The idea of beatific ecstasy is the old and orthodox idea; it does not involve so many contradictions as the former idea, but then it does not satisfy our moral judgment. I say plainly that the hope of such an infinite ecstasy is an inane and unworthy crown of a human life. And when Dr. Ward assures me that it is merely the prolongation of the saintly life, then I say the saintly life is an inane and unworthy life. The words I used about the 'selfish' views of futurity, I applied only to those who say they care for nothing but personal enjoyment, and to those whose only aim is to save their own souls.' Mr. Baldwin Brown has nobly condemned this creed. in words far stronger than mine. And here let us close with the reflection that the language of controversy must always be held to apply not to the character of our opponents, but to the logical consequences of their doctrines, if uncorrected and if forced to their extreme.-The Nineteenth Century.

ONLY a few months ago we took occasion to consider the planet Mars, with special reference to the question whether it is at present, like our earth, the abode of living creatures, and, in particular, of intelligent beings. The circumstance that Mars was about to make a nearer approach to our earth than he has made for fifteen years, or will again make for forty-seven, seemed to render the occasion a fitting one for discussing questions of interest relating to the planet. Apart, indeed, from the interest with which intelligent persons regard the other worlds of our solar system, it has always seemed to us that exact science, nay, even what may be called professional science, gains, when' attention is specially directed to approaching celestial phenomena. For it affords no small encouragement to the systematic observer of the heavens to

know that any discoveries he may make during some favorable presentation of a celestial body, will attract the attention they deserve. The experience of the last few years has shown that observations far more interesting and even valuable may be expected under such circumstances, than when the observer has reason to believe that only the routine work of the observatory-work bearing no closer relation to the true science of astronomy than land-surveying bears to geology-need be attended to. Certainly we may congratulate science that on this special occasion, for the first time in the history of astronomy, a great public observatory has obtained results such as heretofore only so-called amateur astronomers-the Herschels, for example, Lassell, Rosse, and so forth-have achieved. Taking advantage of the near approach

of the Planet of War, and of the exceptionally favorable conditions under which it could be observed in their latitude, the observers who have under their especial charge the great telescope of the Washington Observatory have scrutinised with special care the neighborhood of the planet which till lately was called moonless Mars;" and their skill and watchfulness have been rewarded by the discovery of two moons attending on that planet.

There are several circumstances which render the discovery of these moons in the first place, and in the second the existence of such bodies as attendants on the small planet Mars, exceedingly interesting. These we propose briefly to indicate.

Galileo, after he had completed his largest telescope late in 1609, had to wait for nearly a year before he had a favorable opportunity for studying Mars. Thus he had already discovered the moons of Jupiter and the varying phases of Venus before he could study a planet from which he must have expected even more interesting results. For on the one hand Mars is seen under much more favorable conditions than Venus, and on the other it approaches us much more closely than Jupiter. In the mean time, Kepler had hazarded the prediction that Mars has two moons-a suggestion which, in the light of the recent discovery, may be called, like "the Pogram statter in marble," "a pre-diction, cruel smart." Galileo saw no Martian moons, however, and could, indeed, barely recognise the gibbosity of Mars. From what is now known, indeed, we perceive that one might as hopefully try to read a newspaper at the Faulhorn from the slopes of the Jungfrau, as attempt with such a telescope as Galileo's to detect the minute companions of the War Planet.

Telescope after telescope was thereafter turned on Mars, until the great four-feet mirrors of Sir W. Herschel and Mr. Lassell, and even the mightier sixfeet mirror of Parsonstown, had taken part in the survey of the planet and its neighborhood. But no satellites were discovered; insomuch that when Tennyson (in the first edition only of his poems) sang of " the snowy poles of moonless Mars," few astronomers would have

hesitated to admit that the description was a tolerably safe one.

There were, however, some who still adhered to the view which Kepler had propounded in 1610. Thus the late Admiral Smyth, after describing the appearance which our earth and her companion moon must present to the inhabitants of Mars (if inhabitants he has), says:

This appearance is not reciprocated; for though it is not at all improbable that Mars may have a satellite revolving around him, it is probably very small, and close to his disc, so that it has hitherto escaped our best telescopes; yet, being farther from the sun than the earth is, Mars-if at all habitable-would seem to stand even more in need of a luminous auxiliary."

This idea, in fact, that planets require more moons the farther they lie from the sun, and not only so, but that their requirements in this respect have been attended to, and each planet carefully fitted out with a suitable number of attendants, is one which has found special favor with many believers in other worlds than ours. Whewell, for instance, who, although in his anonymously-written "Plurality of Worlds" he appeared as an opponent of the theory of other worlds, had earlier, in his less known "Bridgewater Treatise," expressed opinions strongly favoring that theory, reasons as follows for the belief that satellites were specially made to bless the planets with their useful light: "Turning our attention to the satellites of the other planets of our system, there is one fact which immediately arrests our attention-the number of such attendant bodies appears to increase as we proceed to planets farther and farther from the sun. Such at least is the general rule. Mercury and Venus, the planets nearest the sun, have no such attendants. The earth has one. Mars, indeed, who is still farther removed, has none; nor have the minor planets, Juno, Vesta, Ceres, and Pallas" (when he wrote these only were known); " so that the rule is only approximately verified. But Jupiter, who is at five times the earth's distance, has four satellites; and Saturn, who is again at a distance nearly twice as great, has seven, besides that most extraordinary phenomenon, his ring

(which for purposes of illumination is equivalent to many thousand satellites). Of Uranus it is difficult to speak, for his great distance renders it almost impossible to observe the smaller circumstances of his condition. It does not appear at all probable that he has a ring like Saturn; but he has at least five satellites which are visible to us" (four only are now recognised) "at the enormous distance of 900 millions of miles; and we believe that the astronomer will hardly deny that he" (Uranus, not the astronomer) "may possibly have thousands of smaller ones circulating about him. But leaving conjecture, and taking only the ascertained cases of Venus, the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, we conceive that a person of common understanding will be strongly impressed with the persuasion that the satellites are placed in the system with a view to compensate for the diminished light of the sun at greater distances," whence we may infer that in subsequently rejecting this opinion, in his 'Plurality of Worlds,' Whewell showed himself a person of uncommon understanding.

According to Whewell's earlier way of viewing the satellites, however, the fact that Mars seemed to have no satellites was to some degree a difficulty, but not an insuperable one. The smaller planets, Juno, Vesta, Ceres, and Pallas," he said, "differ from the rest in so many ways, and suggest so many conjectures of reasons for such differences, that we should almost expect to find them exceptions to such a rule. Mars is a more obvious exception. Some persons might conjecture from this case, that the arrangement itself, like other useful arrangements, has been brought about by some wider law, which we have not yet detected. But whether or not we entertain such a guess (it can be nothing more), we see in other parts of creation so many examples of apparent exceptions to rules, which are afterwards found to be capable of explanation, or to be provided for by particular contrivances, that no one, familiar with such contemplations, will by one anomaly be driven from the persuasion that the end which the arrangements of the satellites seem suited to answer is really one of the ends of their creation."

According to the method of viewing such matters which is now generally in favor among men of science, the considerations urged by Whewell will not be regarded as of any weight. They would not be so regarded even if the satellites of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, or the rings which surround Saturn, really subserved the purpose which Whewell, Brewster, Chalmers, Dick, Lardner, and others have so complacently dwelt upon. But in reality, apart from the evidence tending to show that none of these planets can at present be inhabited, it is absolutely certain that moonlight on Jupiter and Saturn must be far inferior to moonlight on our earth despite the greater number of moons, while that received by Uranus from his four moons must be scarce superior to the light we receive from Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn, so faintly are the Uranian satellites illuminated by a sun nineteen times more remote than the sun we see. As for the rings of Saturn, they act far more effectively to deprive the planet of sunlight than to illuminate the Saturnian nights. Despite the efforts made by Lardner to defend these appendages from the reflections cast upon them in this respect by Sir J. Herschel, it may be mathematically demonstrated (and has been by the present writer) that the rings cast wide zones of the planet-zones many times exceeding the whole surface of our earth-into total eclipse lasting several years in succession. Even were it otherwise, however, no one, familiar with the evidence which nature multiplies around us, would have been disposed to argue, from the presumed fitness of the Jovian and Saturnian arrangements as to satellites, that Mars has moons. If there is a meaning in the arrangements actually observed which should have led astronomers to believe in the existence of Martian satellites a view which certainly the discovery of such satellites goes far to confirm the meaning is one which the laws of physics alone can be expected to interpret.

That Mars should have definitely come to be regarded by nearly all astronomers as without satellites will readily be understood if we consider the nature of the evidence which had been obtained. When Jupiter is at his farthest