ke epochs,
and are the real architects of the fabric of exact knowledge, are
those who introduce fruitful ideas or methods. As a rule, the man who
does this pushes his idea, or his method, too far; or, if he does not,
his school is sure to do so; and those who follow have to reduce his
work to its proper value, and assign it its place in the whole. Not
unfrequently, they, in their turn, overdo the critical process, and,
in trying to eliminate error, throw away truth.

Thus, as I said, Linnaeus, Buffon, Cuvier, Lamarck, really "set forth
the results" of a developing science, although they often heartily
contradict one another. Notwithstanding this circumstance, modern
classificatory method and nomenclature have largely grown out of the
work of Linnaeus; the modern conception of biology, as a science, and
of its relation to climatology, geography, and geology, are, as
largely, rooted in the results of the labours of Buffon; comparative
anatomy and palaeontology owe a vast debt to Cuvier's results; while
invertebrate zoology and the revival of the idea of evolution are
intimately dependent on the results of the work of Lamarck. In other
words, the main results of biology up to the early years of this
century are to be found in, or spring out of, the works of these men.

So, if I mistake not, Strauss, if he did not originate the idea of
taking the mythopoeic faculty into account in the development of the
Gospel narratives, and though he may have exaggerated the influence of
that faculty, obliged scientific theology, hereafter, to take that
element into serious consideration; so Baur, in giving prominence to
the cardinal fact of the divergence of the Nazarene and Pauline
tendencies in the primitive Church; so Reuss, in setting a marvellous
example of the cool and dispassionate application of the principles of
scientific criticism over the whole field of Scripture; so Volkmar, in
his clear and forcible statement of the Nazarene limitations of Jesus,
contributed results of permanent value in scientific theology. I took
these names as they occurred to me. Undoubtedly, I might have
advantageously added to them; perhaps, I might have made a better
selection. But it really is absurd to try to make out that I did not
know that these writers widely disagree; and I believe that no
scientific theologian will deny that, in principle, what I have said
is perfectly correct. Ecclesiastical advocates, of course, cannot be
expected to tak