EDITORS TABLE. 



119 



question we are now considering may 

 be taken as an example. It is pretty 

 well agreed by the latest schools that, 

 as the universe exists in relations, so 

 thought is carried on in relations, and, 

 by its very constitution, cannot tran- 

 scend them. It is agreed that as music 

 in all its inexhaustible complications is 

 still made up by the combination of 

 simple wave -pulses, so intelligence, in 

 all the range of its complications, is 

 made up of the combination of per- 

 ceived relations ; and we might as well 

 talk of the higher exploits of musical 

 art as transcending the vibrations of 

 which they are constituted, as of the 

 "restless expatiations" of thought tran- 

 scending the relations of which mind 

 is constituted. Sir William Hamilton 

 is fair authority, and he says : "Limi- 

 tation is the fundamental law of the 

 possibility of thought. For, as the 

 greyhound cannot outstrip his shadow, 

 nor the eagle outsoar the atmosphere 

 in which he floats, and by which alone 

 he may be supported ; so the mind can- 

 not transcend that sphere of limitation 

 within and through which exclusively 

 the possibility of thought is realized." 

 We therefore fear that, should any 

 adventurer break bounds on a winged 

 horse, and take his flight through the 

 ultra - phenomenal tracts, the tidings 

 wafted back would prove altogether 

 unintelligible. 



Mr. Godwin says : " Am I to infer 

 from your objections to my remarks 

 that The Popular Science Monthly 

 holds materialism, atheism, and natu- 

 ralism, to be the legitimate outcome of 

 science ? " Exactly the contrary. We 

 do not believe that the legitimate out- 

 come of science is materialism or athe- 

 ism, and our attempt was to show that 

 certain problems and procedures, which 

 Mr. Godwin declared to be spurious 

 science and obnoxious to these charges, 

 were genuine science, and not obnox- 

 ious to them. We objected, in order to 

 rescue a portion of science from an as- 

 persive charge to which all science is 



equally liable. Buchner may bo a ma- 

 terialist, and Comto an atheist, and 

 Taine may be both, although it does not 

 follow, because he affirms the correla- 

 tion of mind with nervous motion, that 

 he is either. What moved us to pro- 

 test was the gross injustice of branding 

 Mr. Spencer's expositions of the doc- 

 trine of Evolution as sham science, and 

 then loading it with the opprobrium 

 which its associations and the argu- 

 ment implied. Of Spencer's system, 

 Mr. Godwin says, on his own and 

 higher authority, that it is "full of 

 unsupported assumptions, logical in- 

 consistencies, and explanations which 

 explain nothing, while in its general 

 character it tends to the sheerest natu- 

 ralism." We do not deny that it con- 

 tains defects it would be, indeed, sur- 

 prising if so vast and original a dis- 

 cussion did not ; but to say that it is 

 "full" of the vices alleged, or that 

 they characterize it, is a reckless ex- 

 aggeration. As a set-off to this opin- 

 ion, we refer the reader back to page 

 32, where he will find the latest esti- 

 mate of Mr. Spencer's philosophy by a 

 man who is an authority upon the 

 question he discusses. 



As to the religious "tendencies" of 

 the system, although they are charged 

 with being all that is bad, and although 

 the charge would undoubtedly be sus- 

 tained by a popular vote, we are of 

 opinion that it is bound to be very dif- 

 ferently viewed in the future. Mr. 

 Spencer is a profound believer in re- 

 ligion, and at the very threshold of his 

 system he has shown the ultimate har- 

 mony of science and faith. Yet he 

 has not tried merely to patch up a 

 transient truce between religion and 

 science ; but, foreseeing the intenser 

 conflicts that are inevitable as science 

 advances, he has labored to place their 

 reconciliation upon a basis that no 

 extension of knowledge can disturb. 

 When tho method of science is raised 

 to its rightful supremacy in the human 

 mind, and the rule of science is reeog- 



