by the stratified rocks.  I said:  “This attempt to
          limit, at a particular point, the progress of inductive
          and deductive reasoning from the things which are to
          the things which were—­this faithlessness to its own
          logic, seems to me to have cost uniformitarianism the
          place as the permanent form of geological speculation
          which it might otherwise have held” (Lay Sermons, p.
          260).  The context shows that “uniformitarianism” here
          means that doctrine, as limited in application by
          Hutton and Lyell, and that what I mean by
          “evolutionism” is consistent and thorough-going
          uniformitarianism.

     [24] Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, vol. i. p. 670. 
          New edition, 1847.

     [25] At Glasgow in 1856.

     [26] Optics, query 31.

     [27] The author recognises this in his Explanations.

IV:  AN EPISCOPAL TRILOGY

[1887]

If there is any truth in the old adage that a burnt child dreads the fire, I ought to be very loath to touch a sermon, while the memory of what befell me on a recent occasion, possibly not yet forgotten by the readers of the Nineteenth Century, is uneffaced.  But I suppose that even the distinguished censor of that unheard-of audacity to which not even the newspaper report of a sermon is sacred, can hardly regard a man of science as either indelicate or presumptuous, if he ventures to offer some comments upon three discourses, specially addressed to the great assemblage of men of science which recently gathered at Manchester, by three bishops of the State Church.  On my return to England not long ago, I found a pamphlet[28] containing a version, which I presume to be authorised, of these sermons, among the huge mass of letters and papers which had accumulated during two months’ absence; and I have read them not only with attentive interest, but with a feeling of satisfaction which is quite new to me as a result of hearing, or reading, sermons.  These excellent discourses, in fact, appear to me to signalise a new departure in the course adopted by theology towards science, and to indicate the possibility of bringing about an honourable modus vivendi between the two.  How far the three bishops speak as accredited representatives of the Church is a question to be considered by and by.  Most assuredly, I am not authorised to represent any one but myself.  But I suppose that there must be a good many people in the Church of the bishops’ way of thinking; and I have reason to believe that, in the ranks of science, there are a good many persons who, more or less, share my views.  And it is to these sensible people on both sides, as the bishops and I must needs think those who agree with us, that my present observations are addressed.  They will probably be astonished to learn how insignificant, in principle, their differences are.