EDITOR'S TABLE. 



1M 



stantially the same question put to him 

 as that directed to the editor of the 

 Nation, but he returns to it a very dif- 

 ferent answer, while there is probably 

 no living man better able to answer it. 

 No one, certainly, knows more thor- 

 oughly the nature and extent of Mr. 

 Darwin's contributions to the subject, 

 or has a profounder appreciation of 

 them, than he. And yet, in a lecture 

 before the Eoyal Institution of Great 

 Britain, Prof. Huxley said, after avow- 

 ing his belief in the theory of evolu- 

 tion, "the only complete and system- 

 atic statement of the doctrine, Avith 

 which I am acquainted, is that con- 

 tained in Mr. Herbert Spencer's 'Sys- 

 tem of Philosophy' a work which 

 should be carefully studied by all 

 who desire to know whither scientific 

 thought is tending." Nothing can be 

 more explicit or decisive, and, we may 

 add, nothing more candid and just. 

 Knowing perfectly all that Mr. Darwin 

 had done, conversant as he was with 

 the whole literature of the subject, for- 

 eign and domestic, he also thoroughly 

 understood the claims of Mr. Spencer's 

 contributions to the question, and his 

 deliberate opinion, given to a critical 

 audience, was, that whoever wanted in- 

 formation relating to the "theory of 

 evolution" could only obtain it in a 

 complete and satisfactory form from 

 Mr. Spencer's works. 



But the Nation thinks differently. 

 It not only does not commend Mr. 

 Spencer's works to readers seeking in- 

 formation on the " theory of evolution," 

 but such readers are tacitly warned 

 against them. Prof. Huxley, who ought 

 to know what science is, recommends 

 all who wish to understand the tenden- 

 cies of scientific thought, to the study 

 of Spencer's works ; the Nation objects 

 to Mr. Spencer as an expositor of sci- 

 ence. A distinction is drawn between 

 Darwin and Spencer, in which the 

 former is characterized as "scientific 

 and inductive," and the latter as "spec- 

 ulative." But this distinction is alto- 



gether groundless. Mr. Spencer's treat- 

 ment of the problem of evolution is as 

 rigorously inductive as Mr. Darwin's; 

 but, if, to the inductive procedure, Mr. 

 Spencer superadds the deductive, using 

 established truths in an a priori way to 

 strengthen and verify his conclusions, 

 we hope that is not to be regarded as a 

 contravention of true scientific method. 

 The implication of the writer that Dar- 

 win gives the theory of evolution a 

 firm inductive basis, while Mr. Spencer 

 grounds it upon speculative a priori 

 axioms, is as far as possible from being 

 true. 



Again, Mr. Spencer's works are con- 

 trasted with Darwin's by the writer in 

 the Nation as treating of " general 

 speculative philosophy in connection 

 with theology and religion," while Mr. 

 Darwin "nowhere considers scientific 

 theses as either favorable or unfavor- 

 able to general philosophical or reli- 

 gious conclusions." Now, let us see 

 what ground there is for this distinc- 

 tion. To a series of exhaustive works 

 on evolution which were expected t<> 

 run through a dozen volumes, there was 

 prefixed an introductory part of 123 

 pages, the object of which was to de- 

 fine the sphere of science ; and, in doing 

 this, theology and religion were ex- 

 cluded from the discussion. And so 

 this rejection of theology and religion 

 becomes the basis of a charge that Mr. 

 Spencer runs into theology and reli- 

 gion, in contrast to Mr. Darwin, who 

 sticks to inductive science. It seems 

 to be inferred that, because Mr. Spencer 

 has designated his system of thought as 

 a " philosophy," therefore he is charge- 

 able with all the empty and baseless 

 speculation which that term, in its old 

 applications, connotes. But he clearly 

 explains the sense in which he uses 

 the terra philosophy. By " philosophy " 

 Mr. Spencer means actual, verifiable, 

 scientific knowledge of the highest de- 

 gree of generality. His philosophy, in 

 its leading characteristic, is a synthesis 

 or unification of the sciences, and it is 



