77 2 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



ter and motion. Given these as distributed through space, and their quantities 

 being unchangeable, either by increase or decrease, there inevitably result the 

 continuous redistributions distinguishable as evolution and dissolution, as well 

 as all those special traits above enumerated. 



" ' 16. That which persists unchanging in quantity but ever changing in form, 

 under these sensible appearances which the universe presents to us, transcends 

 human knowledge and conception is an unknown and unknowable power, 

 which we are obliged to recognize as without limit in space and without begin- 

 ning or end in time.' 



" I am not aware that my father entertained any of these views, 

 either definitely or vaguely. But if he did, or if under his influence 

 you reached views similar to these or any of them, it will, I presume, 

 be possible to indicate the resemblances. Or, if specific resemblances 

 are not alleged, still it will be possible to point out what were the 

 ideas you received from him which potentially involved conclusions 

 such as are above set forth. 



" I fear I am entailing some trouble upon you in asking an answer 

 to this question, but the importance of the matter must be my apology. 



" I am, my dear sir, faithfully yours, 



" Heebeet Spencee." 







In Mr. Mozley's reply he stated that he had been obliged already 

 to send off his corrections for a second edition, adding that, " as, there- 

 fore, nothing can be done now, you would not care for any discussion." 

 The result is, that I remain without any reply to my question. One 

 passage, however, in Mr. Mozley's letter serves to give a widely different 

 meaning to his statement ; and, having obtained his permission, I here 

 quote it as follows : " You will observe that I have only a vague idea 

 of my own c philosophy,' and I can not pretend to an accurate knowl- 

 edge of yours. I spoke of a ' family likeness.' But what is that ? 

 There is a family likeness between Cardinal Newman's view and his 

 brother Frank's." 



Now, if the " family likeness " alleged is not greater than that be- 

 tween the belief of a Roman Catholic and the belief of a Rationalist 

 who retains his theism, my chief objection is removed ; for just as the 

 views of the brothers Newman have a certain kinship in virtue of the 

 religious sentiment common to them, so Mr. Mozley's early views and 

 my own may have had the common trait of naturalistic interpretation 

 partially carried out in the one and completely in the other : a com- 

 mon trait, however, which would give Mr. Mozley's early views a 

 "family likeness" to other philosophies than mine. This being under- 

 stood, the only further objection to Mr. Mozley's statement which I 

 have to make is that I do not see how, even in this vague sense, a like- 

 ness can be alleged between that which he names and describes as " a 

 moral philosophy " and " a system of philosophy " of which the 

 greater part is concerned with the phenomena of evolution at large 

 inorganic, organic, and super-organic as interpreted on physical prin- 



