326 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



the theatre of forces having no relation to preceding conditions, and 

 acting consequently as simple disturbers of the natural equilibrium of 

 society. The adherents of this school must only fight the development 

 theory as best they may. The battle is engaged, however, along the 

 whole line, and, to defeat evolution, you must defeat it not in ethics 

 only, but in biology and physics as well. As long as the two latter 

 divisions hold their ground, be sure that any victory over the first can 

 be but momentary. 



It is obvious that the method pursued by Mr. Spencer must give 

 rise to many misapprehensions. The first thought that suggests itself 

 to even an attentive and earnest reader is, that he has left out of sight, 

 and is prevented by his principles from doing justice to, a number of 

 very important considerations. Our individual consciousness tells us 

 nothing of the dependence of present modes of conduct upon past ; 

 but it tells us much of the special motives which influence us from 

 moment to moment. So a wave of the sea, if we could imagine it 

 conscious, might know much of the pressure of adjacent waves and its 

 own adjustments of form in consequence of that pressure, but might 

 know nothing of ocean-currents or the attraction of sun and moon. 

 We feel the influence of some potent personality, but think little of 

 the causes that have fitted us to do so ; yet, to be able to trace and 

 understand those causes, would give us a far more comprehensive the- 

 ory of our moral nature than to be able to analyze and measure with 

 the utmost accuracy the special personal influence by which we are so 

 strongly affected. In a word, what may be called the accidents of our 

 life fill an altogether larger space in consciousness than the general 

 laws, in virtue of which we are substantially what we are. Mr. Spen- 

 cer has undertaken to trace those general laws, leaving accidents out 

 of sight as much as possible ; and, naturally, consciousness protests. 

 If, however, we only call to mind, and impress upon ourselves, what 

 it is that Mr. Spencer attempts, we shall recall many of our criticisms, 

 and find it better to listen attentively to what he has to say. 



Again, with every action there goes a certain accompaniment of 

 individual feeling. We have a sense of its voluntariness, and a con- 

 sequent sense of responsibility. To us, each action stands and is seen 

 in relation to the sum of our own individual actions, and the propor- 

 tion whieh it bears to that sum is very different from the proportion it 

 bears to the whole sum of action in general. It is easy, therefore, to 

 conceive how different the subjective view of action must be from the 

 objective, and how far a history of action such as Mr. Spencer under- 

 takes to write must be from such an account as we might gather from 

 the dicta of consciousness. But, if our individual lives are but links in 

 one great chain of life, which we have learned in these latter days to 

 extend to the lowest forms of the animate creation, can the individ- 

 ual consciousness, however bright and penetrating we may suppose it, 

 be trusted in its affirmations regarding the ' genesis of action and the 



