ssible
hypothesis, in which they aim at explanation: and so the bold aspirations
of the author of the _Vestiges_ find standing-ground in the variation of
species by "natural selection." Some relics--so supposed--of extremely
ancient men are brought to help the general cause. Only distant hints are
given that by possibility it may end in the formation of all living
organisms from a very few, if not from one. The better heads above
mentioned know that their theory, if true, does not bear upon morals. The
formation of solar systems from a nebular hypothesis, followed by
organizations gradually emerging from some curious play of particles, nay,
the very evolution of mind and thought from such an apparatus, are all as
consistent with a Personal creative power to whom homage and obedience are
due, and who has declared himself, as with a blind Nature of Things. A pure
materialist, as to all things visible, may be even a bigotted Christian:
this is not frequent, but it is possible. There is a proverb which says, A
pig may fly, but it isn't a likely bird. But when the psychological
speculator comes in, he often undertakes to draw inferences from the
physical conclusions, by joining on his tremendous apparatus of _a priori_
knowledge. He deduces that he can _do without_ a God: he can deduce all
things {40} without any such necessity. With Occam[81] and Newton he will
have no more causes than are necessary to explain phenomena _to him_: and
if by pure head-work combined with results of physical observation he can
construct his universe, he must be a very _unphilosophical_ man who would
encumber himself with a useless Creator! There is something tangible about
my method, says he; yours is vague. He requires it to be granted that his
system is _positive_ and that yours is _impositive_. So reasoned the stage
coachman when the railroads began to depose him--"If you're upset in a
stage-coach, why, there you are! but if you're upset on the railroad, where
are you?" The answer lies in another question, Which is most positive
knowledge, God deduced from man and his history, or the postulates of the
few who think they can reason _a priori_ on the tacit assumption of
unlimited command of data?

We are not yet come to the existence of a school of philosophers who
explicitly deny a Creator: but we are on the way, though common sense may
interpose. There are always straws which show the direction of the wind. I
have before me the printed letter