are lineally descended, states the case with that plainness
          of speech, not to say brutality, which characterised him. 
          Luther says that man is a beast of burden who only moves as
          his rider orders; sometimes God rides him, and sometimes
          Satan.  “Sic voluntas humana in medio posita est, ceu
          jumentum; si insederit Deus, vult et vadit, quo vult
          Deus....  Si insederit Satan, vult et vadit, quo vult Satan;
          nec est in ejus arbitrio ad utrum sessorem currere, aut eum
          quaerere, sed ipsi sessores certant ob ipsum obtinendum et
          possidendum” (De Servo Arbitrio, M. Lutheri Opera, ed.
          1546, t. ii. p. 468).  One may hear substantially the same
          doctrine preached in the parks and at street-corners by
          zealous volunteer missionaries of Evangelicism, any Sunday,
          in modern London.  Why these doctrines, which are conspicuous
          by their absence in the four Gospels, should arrogate to
          themselves the title of Evangelical, in contradistinction to
          Catholic, Christianity, may well perplex the impartial
          inquirer, who, if he were obliged to choose between the two,
          might naturally prefer that which leaves the poor beast of
          burden a little freedom of choice.

     [16] I say “so-called” not by way of offence, but as a
          protest against the monstrous assumption that Catholic
          Christianity is explicitly or implicitly contained in any
          trustworthy record of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

     [17] It may be desirable to observe that, in modern times,
          the term “Realism” has acquired a signification wholly
          different from that which attached to it in the middle ages. 
          We commonly use it as the contrary of Idealism.  The Idealist
          holds that the phenomenal world has only a subjective
          existence, the Realist that it has an objective existence.  I
          am not aware that any mediaeval philosopher was an Idealist
          in the sense in which we apply the term to Berkeley.  In
          fact, the cardinal defect of their speculations lies in
          their oversight of the considerations which lead to
          Idealism.  If many of them regarded the material world as a
          negation, it was an active negation; not zero, but a minus
          quantity.

     [18] At any rate a catastrophe greater than the flood,
          which, as I observe with interest, is as calmly assumed by
          the preacher to be an historical event as if science had
          never had a word to say on that subject!

     [19] “Les formes des anciens ou Entelechies ne sont autre
          chose que les forces” (Leibnitz, Lettre au Pere Bouvet,
          1697).