300 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



versy is pure evil. It is not so when it leads to a closer sifting of im- 

 portant doctrines ; when it is inspired with friendly feeling, and has 

 no other object than to arrive at the truth. There were no mere 

 " compliments " in my expressions of respect for Mr. Spencer and his 

 work. I habitually speak of him as the only living Englishman who 

 can fairly lay claim to the name of philosopher ; nay, he is, I believe, 

 the only man in Europe now living who has constructed a real system 

 of philosophy. Very much in that philosophy I willingly adopt ; as a 

 philosophical theory I accept his idea of the Unknowable. My rejec- 

 tion of it as the basis of Religion is no new thing. The substance of 

 my essay on the " Ghost of Religion " I have long ago taught at New- 

 ton Hall. The difference between Mr. Spencer and myself as to what 

 religion means is vital and profound. So deep is it that it justifies me 

 in returning to these questions, and still further disturbing his philo- 

 sophic labor. But our long friendship, I trust, will survive the inevi- 

 table dispute. 



It will clear up much at issue between us if it be remembered that 

 to me this question is one primarily of religion ; to Mr. Spencer, one 

 primarily of philosophy. He is dealing with transcendental concep- 

 tions, intelligible only to certain trained metaphysicians : I have been 

 dealing with religion as it affects the lives of men and women in the 

 world. Hence, if I admit with him that philosophy points to an un- 

 knowable and inconceivable Reality behind phenomena, I insist that, 

 to ordinary men and women, an unknowable and inconceivable Reality 

 is practically an Unreality. The Everlasting Yes which the Evolu- 

 tionist metaphysician is conscious of, but can not conceive, is in effect 

 on the public a mere Everlasting No ; and a religion which begins 

 and ends with the mystery of the Unknowable is not religion at all, 

 but a mere logician's formula. This is how it comes about that Mr. 

 Spencer complains that I have misunderstood him or have not read his 

 books, that I fail to represent him, or even misrepresent him. I can 

 not admit that I have either misunderstood him or misrepresented 

 him on any single point. I have studied his books part by part and 

 chapter by chapter, and have examined the authorities on which he 

 relies. 



He seems to think that all hesitation to accept his views will dis- 

 appear if men will only turn to his "First Principles," his "Principles 

 of Sociology," and his " Descriptive Sociology," where he has " proved " 

 this and " disproved " that, and arrayed the arguments and the evi- 

 dence for every doctrine in turn. Now, for my part, I have studied 

 all this, to my great pleasure and profit, since the first number of "A 

 Synthetic Philosophy " appeared. Mr. Spencer objects to discipleship, 

 or I would say that I am in very many things one of his disciples 

 myself. But in this matter of religion I hold still, as I have held from 

 the first, that Mr. Spencer is mistaken as to the history, the nature, 

 and the function of religion. It is quite true that he and I are at 



