CREATION OR EVOLUTION? 37 



philosophy, implies ex vi termini, the act of causing to exist," the an- 

 swer to give is that the term " creation " is not used in " all modern 

 philosophy," and that the idea of creation has a very small place in- 

 deed in modern philosophy. Professor Eucken, of Jena, in a useful 

 little hand-book, which has been translated by a professor at Andover 

 and furnished with an introduction by the ex-President of Yale, has 

 catalogued and commented on " The Concepts of Modern Philosophy." 

 Mr. Curtis will search the list in vain for any mention of the concept 

 of " creation " ; and it is a perfectly safe statement to make that the 

 idea in question is not an element of any importance in contemporary- 

 philosophical thought. 



Mr. Curtis says many odd things without being in the least aware 

 of it. He describes lexicographers as " learned persons, part of whose 

 business it is to exhibit the thought that is represented by a word, . . . 

 according to the exact correspondence between the word and the idea 

 which it conveys in its primary and philosophical usage." A very 

 little reflection, aided by a small amount of inquiry, would have suf- 

 ficed to satisfy him that the primary sense of a word and its philo- 

 sophical sense are seldom, if ever, the same. He tells us that, ac- 

 cording to his famous postulate, " the whole void which consists in 

 mere nothingness " is " under the absolute sway " of the Creator. 

 Could more nonsensical language possibly be put together? Imagine 

 the Creator swaying " nothingness " ! How much power does it take 

 to do it ? What effect has it upon " nothingness " to be " swayed " ? 

 Has it all been " swayed " yet, or is some of it still unswayed ? These 

 questions are all quite pertinent and quite absurd ; and, when a ques- 

 tion is at once pertinent and absurd, it is evident that something is 

 wrong with the matter to which the question relates. Mr. Curtis 

 would not believe Mr. Spencer when the latter told him that the idea 

 of creation was unthinkable ; he thought he knew better, and now we 

 find his supposed superior knowledge leading him to represent the Al- 

 mighty as swaying nothing. Mr. Spencer knew it would come to 

 that ; and, should he find time to look at Mr. Curtis's book, he will 

 have no such shocks of surprise as Mr. Curtis had in reading his. Our 

 author further tells us that "the theologian is not the only person who 

 has occasion to examine the doctrine of evolution ; it must be exam- 

 ined by the statesman as well." By all means ! Let theologians, 

 statesmen, and lawyers all examine it, and whosoever will let him ex- 

 amine it ; only let this caution be whispered into each one's ear, that 

 it requires a little preparation to examine it to any good purpose. Our 

 author is not the only prominent lawyer who has failed to make much 

 of it. He will find a sympathizer in Mr. Chauncey M. Depew, who told 

 the Nineteenth Century Club, not so long ago, that, down in Wall 

 Street, the whole phraseology of evolution would be quite unintelli- 

 gible. We don't doubt it ; a comprehensive system of philosophy, 

 founded on a very wide range of induction, is apt to be incom- 



