For the expression of these, his proper humanity, he continued, irrespective of his conscious belief, to live on what had been developed through Plato and the Gospels, the Church and the poets. For it was these, as we have seen, which had built up the meanings of those old words in terms of which he learnt to think and feel about his fellow-men. Whenever the biologico-mechanical meanings did creep into human relationships—as, for example, into the economic relationship through the word _competition_ and otherwise—the result was, almost without exception, disastrous. The famous Encyclical Letter and Syllabus of 1864, in which modern movements of thought were condemned and anathematized wholesale from the Vatican, was thus in some sense an attempt to express in dogmatic form a principle which was, in fact, already active throughout Europe. And the pathetic impotence of this papal gesture probably marks the maximum point of that divergence between science and religion, as modes of experience, which first became noticeable in the Alexandrian world, and of which nineteenth-century philosophy had become sufficiently conscious to create the word _Dualism_. The rapid conquest of intellectual Europe, which was achieved, not only by the general idea of evolution, but by the particular Darwinian theory of mechanical natural selection, is a matter of some surprise when we consider that a full acceptance of it necessitated a reversal of practically every metaphysical idea and feeling likely to be present in a nineteenth-century soul. No doubt one could point to a variety of causes. There is evidence, for instance, in a certain class of word which had recently begun to multiply that even in Protestant countries the custodians of the ancient outlook were not always fortresses of wisdom and enlightenment. _Religionism_ appears towards the close of the eighteenth century, and then _religiosity_ (in a bad sense),[62] and in the next century the now obsolete _religiose_. The word _pious_, which had long been degenerating towards an imputation of feeble-mindedness, formed an unpleasant derivative, _pietism_, which in turn produced its adjective _pietistic_; and in 1864—an appropriate year—we first come up against _clericalism_. _Unction_—the name of one of the deepest mysteries of the Catholic Church—is first recorded by the _Oxford English Dictionary_ with an offensive meaning in 1870, when Lowell writes of “that clerical unction which in a vulgar nature so easily degenerates into greasiness”. _Unctuous_ was not long in following suit, and instances could no doubt be multiplied. The extension towards the priesthood of this particular shade of disapproval seems to have been the product of the age. Possibly the single earlier example is the old word _cant_, which dates back to the Middle Ages, and is said to have been born of exasperation at the whining tone adopted by the mendicant friars in their “chants” (cantare). In the same