[1]

Since professed unbelievers, whether called infidels or atheists, or recognised as materialists, pantheists, positivists, freethinkers, or by any other name, may be regarded by legitimate inference as virtually looking on the acceptors of Christianity as a class of cozened and credulous ignoramuses, because of their believing in a personal God and divine Revelation; they cannot justly complain if in return for such an implied estimate, they are in any case treated with ridicule and scorn by the said ignoramuses; for these, in holding themselves as witnesses for their own great Creator and His imperishable Revelation, will not calmly submit to be substantially told by the dupes of blank infidelity that they are in respect of their beliefs, a set of undiscerning and unreasoning fools and simpletons.

In the sentiments and bearing of the advocates of materialism, or thorough infidelity of any species, there is embedded a large amount of arrogance and impudence, for in their rejection of Christianity they actually lay claim to a superior degree of wisdom and discernment, compared with that which is possessed by its acceptors; and that these therefore are in that respect more deserving of being looked on as misled or ignorant fools than wise men. When we direct our attention in this light to the supercilious abettors of infidelity, we picture them to ourselves in the character of presuming pigmies vilifying the memory of dead giants, and daring living ones to the fight, inasmuch as very many great men who have had, and very many who still have, the highest reputations for literature, have not only professed undoubting belief in God and Revelation; but have been the most learned and redoubtable defenders of the whole system of Christianity. We feel therefore as if we beheld in the field of contest this and that and the other self-magnifying sceptic, crowing with exultation in the midst and the muddle of his materialism, and in sheer impertinence pretending to caricature and laugh at believers in a personal Creator and God over all, as the blinded dupes of superstitious credulity. Such by implication is the compliment professed infidels pay to believers; but if any believer, following the example of Elijah in mocking the priests of Baal, adventures by anything in the shape of mocking to come down on any specimens of the said infidel fraternity, forthwith there may be raised no little hullaballoo about rudeness, and incivility, and the lack of Christian charity.

Alas! alas! how very rude and inconsiderate for the great prophet Elijah to mock such learned and enlightened men as the [2] priests of Baal! How very rude and inconsiderate for any one in these our own days of superlative speculation and discernment to laugh in mockery at such learned-looking theories as represent human beings as merely lumps of matter organized, and the lineal descendants of tadpoles, monkeys an baboons. What folly for any to laugh at theories so very simple, and which great scientists can so easily put beyond doubt! How could they be mistaken in a matter so capable of demonstration? and who so presumptuous as to say to them in scorn, "No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." Nevertheless, being less concerned for the credit of their precious evolution science than our own creditable lineage, and therefore being inclined to abide sternly by the Mosaic account of the "origin of species," and consequently our honourable descent from Adam and Eve, we hold ourselves at full liberty–as the case may happen to demand, to hoot with ridicule and contempt the romance and rigmarole of all Huxley-Darwinian balderdash anent Protoplasm, Powheads, or Porwiggles.

[3]

"O vanity of vanities! How wayward the decrees of Fate are; How very weak the very wise! How very small the very great are!"   Thackeray.

Protoplasm looked at by the unlearned simply as a euphonious term, and to them of unknown meaning, may have something of an imposing aspect; but when once introduced for their information into the common dictionary, they may find it designated in the language of Professor Huxley, "the physical basis of life," and described as "a granulated semifluid body, contractile in mass and also in detail." As a somewhat recently "developed" term in scientific nomenclature, it possesses, in the estimation of juvenile and embryonic scientists, great attractions, and hence their pedantic repetition of it makes them feel as if they were thereby adding not a little to their intellectual or scientific stature. If its influence extended only to an increase of this species of inflated vanity, there might be the less to cause regret; but from the apocryphal attributes with which it is accredited, it has become a sort of pseudo-scientific Jack-o'-lantern or Will-o'-the-wisp, in leading some silly be-glamoured dupes into the swamps and quagmires of infidelity. Its influence in this direction was doubtless in the eye of Mr. Disraeli, when, in his Parliamentary speech on Mr. Gladstone's Dublin University Bill, he said–"This is essentially a material age....We live in an age when young men prattle about Protoplasm, and when young ladies in gilded saloons unconsciously talk atheism."

Since, according to the proverb, "As auld cocks craw young cocks learn," it is the less surprising that there should be found young sceptical or atheistic cocks, "crawing" or prattling about Protoplasm, when there are found, perched on high and conspicuous places, many auld atheistic cocks flapping their wings and crawing exultingly, whether about [4] Protoplasm specially, or inorganic matter generally, as having an inherent power for originating life, or as actually constituting life itself. For what could be more natural than for young men and young ladies, whether in gilded saloons or anywhere else, to prattle about that whereof they conceive their all-important selves are actually made? It is not to be supposed that the atheistic creatures would prattle so vulgarly as to say they were made of "dust," for this would have too much of a Scriptural and unlearned appearance, and therefore it has, in their eyes, a much more erudite and scientific look to prattle about their being made of–or their being made by–Protoplasm. In our juvenile days–some threescore years ago–when college Professors and other pedagogues were not quite so materialistic in their teachings as they are now, and consequently less inclined to taboo Biblical catechisms in the view of bringing about irreligious equality, our first and appropriately called "Mother's Catechism" put the question: "Who made you?" and the reply was "God made me"; but in this "material age" the reply would need to be–Protoplasm made me. Then to the next question, "What are you made of?" instead of saying in reply, "Of dust," young prattlers would need to say–we are made of Protoplasm. Were all to proceed thus logically and scientifically, the next question would be: What is Protoplasm? and the proper atheistic reply would be: it is "the physical basis of life," while, for proof, chapters and verse would be quoted from the Revelations of Professor Huxley; and the statement still farther confirmed that Protoplasm must be the said "basis of life" by the common sense consideration that no body could be made without a basis.

To some such exposition as this the matter must come for the instruction of young prattlers, if general belief is to be entertained in the supposed life-giving or creating power of Protoplasm; and then Topsy's notion of her "origin" or mode of "evolution," as given in Uncle Tom's Cabin may be regarded as scarcely less scientific:– "Have you ever heard anything about God, Topsy?" asks her new mistress–"Do you know who made you?" To which Topsy replies: "Nobody as I knows on; 'spect I grow'd. Don't think nobody never made me." Such was Topsy's scientific theory of her origin, or the "evolution" of her species, and it is not much behind the notions of those Protoplasmic or materialistic scientists who seem to know as little about God as she did, in their ascribing the existence of all living things, and there[4] fore the human race itself, to the inherent powers of matter; so that their correct way of speaking of themselves, according to their materialistic creed, would be to say with Topsy:–"Don't think nobody never made us–we 'spect we grow'd." It is clear that were the old "use and wont" of catechetical instruction to be continued for the benefit of young prospective prattlers in science, its basis would not require to be on the Mosaic account of the "origin of species," but on what dealt largely with Protoplasm, atoms, monads, primary cells, powheads, and porwiggles. It would be necessary to show that all things had begun or "grow'd" out of another, till human beings had themselves "grow'd" out of monkeys or ourang-outangs. Should new catechisms be thought of for such instruction, these could easily be prepared by competent Lord Rectors, sceptical Professors, Broad-church D.D.'s; but instead of using the now almost hackneyed phrases of "evolution and transmutation," in accounting for the origin of species, they should adopt Topsy's scientific nomenclature, and use the word "grow'd"; and hence instruct each young atheistic prattler to say, in accounting for his own origin, "I 'spect I grow'd. Don't think nobody never made me."

Since it seems sufficiently notorious that "young men prattle about Protoplasm, and young ladies in gilded saloons talk atheism," it is high time that primary catechetical manuals, strictly scientific, should be got ready for such novices and neophytes, lest in ignorance they caricature rather than explain what they prattle and talk about, when wishful to display their supposed scientific acquisitions. A writer in Blackwood takes note of the glib way in which such may be heard alluding to their own "developed" condition, saying, as if parenthetically, "We were once tadpoles, you know" (for as honest evolutionists they are not ashamed of having been "once tadpoles"), and after thus noting the case, he proceeds to remark:–"In many circles, especially in certain sections of London society, fluent conversational evolutionists are to be found, whose literary culture hardly goes deeper than a slight knowledge of Swinburne's poetry, and whose scientific and philosophical training is restricted to a desultory acquaintance with some of Mr. Darwin's more philosophical works." It may be that in London circles the evolution, with the protoplasmic pestilence assumes an aggravated type; but the contagion is afflicting the provinces also, and even as far north [6 as Aberdeen, where it has so encroached on the thinking powers and moral feelings of a large body of academical youths that they gratuitously invited a party to come in an official capacity among them, who, like the person said by the Evangelist to have been "full of leprosy," is radically affected with the virus of Evolution and Protoplasm–and yet no measures were taken to subject him previously to any disinfecting fumigation. It may be that the youthful requisitionists in this case, like some older experimenters who have purposely tried the effect of contagious inoculation on their own persons, have wished to follow the example, in the view of gaining admiration for their apparent devotion to science. Or wishing, perhaps, to hear the utmost that could be said about Protoplasm and Evolution, they had thought of putting themselves for that purpose in immediate communication with one of the greatest experts on these subjects; and by whom the rank and file of sceptic or atheistic sciolists are accustomed to swear, as another infallible authority.

However, if any danger from the virus of scepticism was apprehended in consequence of the formation of such a Rectorial relationship, it might have been supposed that it would be counteracted by a spell at Lay-sermonising, for which the object of their choice has been somewhat celebrated; and if he took to that for their edification, he might attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of his own text, in which he puts the question:–"Wherein lies man's superiority, or in what respect has he the advantage of the brute, but in respect of his speech." If, indeed, the essence of human superiority, compared with the irrational animals or brute-creation, consists in the possession of the attribute of articulate speech, then prattling about Protoplasm, or talking atheism will be attended with less injurious consequences; and such hapless youths as can be persuaded of this will more readily take the empirical and atheistical advice given them rectorially, to be all for the present world and think nothing about the future. The distinction, however between the man and the brute has been made out by a higher rule of contrast by the philosophical Mr. Coleridge, when he says in his Table-Talk:–

Lord Bacon, another great philosopher, who, like Coleridge, did not repudiate Revelation and common sense, or the principles of his own inductive philosophy, said, as we find quoted by Dr. Martyn Paine:–"I had rather believe all the fables in the legend and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame (the body) is without mind; and therefore God never wrought miracles to convince Atheism, because His ordinary works convince it. It is true a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to Atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to Religion." Pursuing the reasoning which this is meant to confirm, Dr. Paine remarks:–"The concerted action which is now in progress in the British School of the 'New Philosophy,' reveals its prototype as it flourished in Addison's time; and the reader will be interested with the parallel." Referring to the infidelity which thus prevailed upon the subject of the Soul and its Immortality, Addison continues thus:–

That peculiar species of animals which Addison has designated "solemn blockheads," and to whom he has appropriately given the additional name of "wretches," has not only ever since had a sufficient number of representatives to keep the breed alive, but has for a while past been turning out more than a usual number of specimens. The propagators of materialism, and other forms of infidelity–constituting such "solemn blockheads"–have been much on the increase of late, so that, after the style of certain demoniacs questioned by Jesus as to their name, they may say their "name is legion, for they are so many;" or, as otherwise expressed, their "name is legion, because many devils were entered into them." As they were also represented as "exceedingly fierce," the same may be said of some of the possessed now in view, especially in their bearing towards their supposed arch-enemies, the clergy, whom Buchner, one of their redoubted Goliaths, is pleased to call "theological cut-throats." The clergy have always been regarded by infidels as a set of elfish bogies and ghoules; but none of them we should suppose would proceed so far under any slandering from blank atheism, as to indulge in "throat-cutting"–even in the case of such hopeless sinners as reason, and reduce themselves to the degrading status of beasts, by denying they have immortal souls. Theologians, notwithstanding the teachings of the so-called "New Philosophy" and "Modern Science" have still more faith in the power of exorcism than in throat-cutting, and they would rather, for the benefit of the possessed themselves, do their best to drive out the evil spirits with which they are infested; and with no objections to these tormentors going into swine if such a boon were sought.

However, although the evil materialistic spirit which possesses Buchner has led him, from being "exceedingly fierce," to spurt a molecule or modicum of venom at his bogies–the "theological cut-throats"–we do not mean to insinuate that all who are substantially of his materialistic school are equally [9] disposed to such rabid or venomous epithets at the expense of the preaching fraternity; and certainly we would not include in this category the present Lord Rector of the Aberdeen University, for he is a bit of a preacher himself, and has actually published a volume of his pulpit lucubrations under the title of Lay Sermons. Dr. Martyn Paine very racily says of this: "But the drollest thing of all that has issued from 'modern science' is the project of promoting its doctrines by lay-preaching, notwithstanding its 'emancipation from theology,' as lately exemplified in a series of so-called Lay Sermons by the Harlequin of Science. They will doubtless make many converts to the worship of that unknowable which presides over the creative forces and laws of inorganic nature, particularly the sermon on the 'Origin of Species.' The freshness of novelty pervades all the sermons. This, as in the one just mentioned, is particularly manifest in the manner in which he salutes the clerical preachers in another sermon, of whom he says–'They are at present divisible into three sections–an immense body, who are ignorant and speak out; a small proportion, who know and are silent; and minute minority, who know and speak according to their knowledge.' The merits of their sermons are measured by the same criterion as already quoted from our author on another occasion, and which would 'commit them to the flames.' This opinion of Clerical Sermons is followed by a corresponding suggestion of a novel method of hallowing the Sabbath Day–'Would there,' he asks, 'really be anything wrong in using a part of Sunday for the purpose of instructing those who have no other leisure in a knowledge of the phenomenon of nature, and of man's relation to nature? should like to see a Scientific Sunday School in every parish.' What he would inculcate in these Sunday Schools as to 'man's relation to nature' may be inferred from the remark that 'I hold with the materialist that the human body is a machine, all the operations of which will, sooner or later, be explained on physical principles; that we shall arrive at a mechanical equivalent of consciousness and volition.' 'And if I say that thought is a property of matter, all that I mean is, that actually or possibly, the consciousness of extension and the consciousness of resistance accompany all other sorts of consciousness. Why and how they are thus related is an insoluble mystery.'"

Although at the risk of being thought to resemble too closely that section of clericals the Rector specifies as an "immense body who are ignorant and speaks out," we must so far exercise [10] the privileges of free-speech and out-speaking, as to remark that, from the pitiful ignorance which he and his compeers in scepticism or blank materialism develop, in respect of the theology, philosophy, and science even of the Bible, it would be well if they would condescend in their mightiness to take for their own instruction some of the lessons given in existing Sabbath Schools, instead of projecting such as in the name of science, would, for the Mosaic account of God's Creation, substitute by their "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called," their so-called development and transmutation theories; and thus get the rising generation scientifically taught they are merely matter organized, and the descendants of apes, gorillas, and orang-outangs. The surest way of poisoning the nation with scepticism is to teach its balderdash to the young, whether in Sabbath Schools or other juvenile seminaries; and as supplementary to this, if sceptical Professors and Lord Rectors of Universities can be got, they will help in a superlative manner to carry on the destructive work. This brings before us a view of the subject on which we might descant at some length; but instead we shall present in regard to it the sentiments of a public journal, elicited by the perusal of Professor Huxley's inaugural speech as Rector of the University of Aberdeen. It is much to be regretted that more of our journals are not equally inclined to act on such counsel as the witty Dr. South tendered in preaching in St. Paul's Cathedral in the metropolis, 200 years ago; and "reflect upon the numerous litter of strange things, senseless, absurd opinions, that crawl about in the world, to the disgrace of reason and the unanswerable reproach of a broken intellect." Had it been otherwise, the Perthshire Courier had not been left so much alone to expostulate as it thus did in its publication of 10th March, 1874.

Next, for the sake of the comment by which it is followed, we adduce as the text a short passage from the Rector's address, wherein he remarks:–"Kant has said that the ultimate object of all knowledge is to give replies to these three questions. What can I do? What ought I to do? What may I hope for? The forms of knowledge which I have enumerated (continued the Rector) should furnish such replies as are within human reach to the first and second of these questions. While, to the third, perhaps, the wisest answer is, 'DO WHAT YOU CAN TO DO WHAT YOU OUGHT, AND LEAVE HOPING AND FEARING ALONE.' And second, 'Practical life is such a sum, in which your duty multiplies into your capacity, and divided by your circumstances, gives you the fourth term in the proportion, which is your deserts with great accuracy.' 'Your deserts!' We could not have imagined it necessary–continued the critic–to send to London for a learned Professor to come to tell 600 Aberdeen students particularly how, 'with [12] great accuracy' to ascertain their 'deserts.' We do not know how it may be with Aberdeen students particularly, but we suppose we shall be very amply borne out when we say, that with people generally, the great concern is, not to know what their deserts may exactly be, but, knowing them to be sufficiently great and sufficiently bad, how they may best get rid of them. Strange admonition to the students this:–Do what you can to do what you ought, and let hoping and fearing alone.' And still stranger instruction:–'Your duty multiplied into your capacity, and divided by your circumstances, gives you the fourth term in the proportion, which is your deserts, with great accuracy!' Here is the new gospel according to Huxley–works without either hope or fear, which, being interpreted, simply means without either reward or punishment,–duty, capacity, circumstances, deserts! A miserable comforter it surely is. Whatever all else this may be, we are to stake our existence upon the contention that, at least, it is not philosophy. Mr. Darwin concedes to man the comparatively honourable condition of progress and development. But Professor Huxley casts him back direct to the condition of the dogs. His formulated proposition for extracting the deserts of the one is precisely of equal application and efficacy in determining the deserts of the other. And, so in the matter of duty and destiny, are the cases perfectly identical. Every well-conditioned and well-trained dog undoubtedly does what Professor Huxley told the Aberdeen students they had only to do–does what he can to do what he believes he ought, and so far as we know anything about the mental and moral constitution of dogs, he leaves all removed and remote considerations of 'hoping and fearing alone.' Noble teaching this to be sure. No wonder the learned preceptor deemed it necessary to preface his prelection with the confession and warning that, however highly he might be esteemed by the students of Aberdeen, his doctrines had not yet found favour in the eyes of academic respectability . ... Then, the farther admonition to 'leave hoping and fearing alone!' Is that the advice of a philosopher? Is it a philosophic advice arbitrarily to tell any earnest anxious man to do, what no man, by mere authority, can do? A thorough philosophic mind would despise to emit any such dictum. A genuine philosopher would not so befool himself and his disciples....If all we have got to do is do what we can, to do what we ought, and leave hoping and fearing alone–if the whole problem which man has to solve in this world is reducible to a [13] proposition in the Rule of Three, whereby, without either hope or fear he may, 'with great accuracy,' extract his deserts,–where can be the place for, and what can be the use of, the whole Divine scheme of Redemption, and the whole system of the Christian religion? Manifestly–nowhere; and manifestly–none.

In two subsequent issues of the Courier –Sept. 15th, 22nd, 1874–there is a review of an excellent pamphlet by Rev. Alexander Anderson, M.A., Director of the Gymnasium, Old Aberdeen, titled: "Science–Theology–Religion: with notices of the teaching of Professor Struthers and others;" and wherewith students and others under any materialistic or other pseudo-scientific tendencies should provide themselves. From the review, which spares no arrows in dealing with the tomfooleries of the pretentious scientists who came in its way, we shall present a few of its pungent remarks, and the more readily as they are well calculated to supersede any farther observations of our own in reference to the parties on whom the reviewer's blows descend.

[14] In allusion to the absurd materialistic theories or fancies set forth in the name of science by Tyndall and Huxley–et hoc genus omne, the reviewer says:–

We have respect for the memory of the old lady of Edinburgh who, on being told that David Hume was overthrowing the Christian Religion, quietly replied, 'Gey impiddent in him, I'm thinking.' And the similarly quiet remark of Dr. Beatie of Marischal College is well worth reproducing:–'These gentlemen seem to have a strange prejudice against their Maker.' There is no difficulty in unravelling their webs of speeches, down to the last thread and fibre of them. And for some purposes, and with a view to the instruction of certain classes of enquirers, this may with propriety be done. Nor will these 'prejudiced' and 'impiddent' gentlemen be left to complain that this detailed method of dealing with their effusions has been neglected. Mr. Huxley's Sabbath Evening Sermon on Protoplasm (in Edinburgh) was pretty well attended to, in that particular line of treatment. But ridicule is as legitimate as argument, and comes more readily to hand. A pulpy deity like Protoplasm is easily quashed. It will be neither to-day or to-morrow that Mr. Huxley will get a temple built on Carlton Hill, for a god who has so little self-respect as to be indifferent whether his habitat be in fish, or flesh, or flowers, nettles or dockens, Scotch fiddles or the intestines of men and brutes. Elijah, with the priests of Baal, has taught us how to deal fearlessly with more remarkable gods than these. And Paul has instructed us to call their worshippers 'fools' to their faces. For if the saying has any meaning, or is capable of verification, 'Professing themselves to be wise they became fools,' who can fail to see [15] it verified when men study Natural History, not to discover traces of wisdom and design, but to find in the functions of animals a substitute for a living and all-wise Creator?

Whilst it is a comfort to find, as so far thus illustrated, that true science–so different from science falsely so-called–is demolishing the fantastic structures of atheistic materialism, it is a matter of farther congratulation to sound thinkers and God-fearing men, that now even, as in former times, the worshipped leaders of infidel theories fall foul of one another; and in their sceptical raids on Revelation and common sense, break their harlequin wooden swords on the heads of their own professional brethren. Hence, M. Paul Janet, Professor of Philosophy in Paris, in speaking of Schopenhauer, one of the wild theorists of Germany, adverts to him as saying, "Pantheism has fallen so low, and has led to such nonsense, that people have finally worked it as a means of livelihood for themselves and families." Farther, giving a character to the several systems of spurious metaphysics taught by Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling, he says in sarcasm, "Dilute a minimum of thought into five hundred pages of nauseous phraseology, and trust for the rest to the truly German patience of the reader." So hath spoken Harlequin Schopenhauer of the three other harlequins thus in his view, whilst he himself had "taken the fancy of reviving the Nirvana of the Buddhists"–as stated by Janet. The same author, referring to Buchner, one of the present most popular 'harlequins of science,' represents him by saying:–"We shall set aside all the philosophical verbiage by which our theoricians shine, chiefly the German philosophy, which inspires a legitimate disgust in men both learned and illiterate. The days are past when learned jargon, metaphysical quackery, and intellectual legerdemain enjoyed popularity." "Our modern philosophers are fond of heating up old vegetables, and then serving them under new names as the last invention of the philosophical kitchen."

Wherein may consist the difference, in Buchner's view, between sceptical philosophical kitchens and atheistic sculleries, we do not know; but we are sure enough that no man could be at meaner and more dismal work than Buchner's own, in sweating and toiling to brush up and burnish in his scullery the old sooty pots and pans and other begrimed ware of Democritus, Epicurus, and other old heathen atheistic world-makers. Veritable scullions of good character we can conscientiously respect, lowly though they may be; but persons learned or illiterate, who toil at such degrading and destruc[16]tive work as Buchner and Co. in their sceptical sculleries and kitchens, we utterly pity and contemn; for their abhorrent theories and principles tend directly to the ruin of immortal souls, and if generally embraced would lead to the ruin of the nation itself. Not only therefore are there urgent demands on Christians generally, as well as on Buchner's nicknamed "theological cut-throats," to betake themselves energetically to the proper means for repelling the arrogant and impudent foe, but even the Government of the land itself may be urged to keep a watchful eye on the propagators of atheism, whether openly avowed teachers of the abominations, or such as endeavour to get currency for these, under the specious names of philosophy and science; for were the doctrines of atheistic materialism generally accepted, the very existence of the State itself would be endangered. For the purpose of maintaining civil order and good government generally, more than merely civil interests should be less or more under the protection of State authorities, supreme and subordinate, in as much as robbing men of their Christian principles–for which atheism labours–is a species of robbery of a much more serious character than aught which affects temporal goods or chattels.

"Who steals my purse, steals trash, 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he who filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."

Thus hath Shakespeare wrote in illustration of the superior value of a good name compared with worldly substance; but of higher value still than even a good name are Christian principles, and parties who by any means rob men of these are the worst enemies of our race. They are still worse specimens of humanity than the denounced "theological cut-throats" of our said atheistic German scientist; and, if we may be allowed to imitate his refined nomenclature in this matter, we may call them materialistic or atheistic cut-throats; and on whom, if viewed only in the light of citizens or subjects of the kingdom, we must look as very dangerous characters–and all the more so if they are in any way officially connected with educational institutions.

[17]

THE HUXLEY FILE

C. Blinderman & D. Joyce
Clark University