464 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



a peculiar people," Nothing hencef ortli is too good for us, no " wait- 

 ing upon Providence" unjustifiable. If, on the other hand, we have 

 no guarantee that we are in any special sense the nurslings of Heaven, 

 then it rests with us to make the best of whatever endowments we find 

 ourselves actually possessing. We dismiss conceit from our minds, 

 and apply ourselves simply to know what is, in order that we may be 

 able to exert the widest and most potent influence possible on our 

 environment. 



In further illustration of the superior dignity of our planet, it is 

 observed that " that divine spark, the soul, as it takes up its brief 

 abode in this realm of fleeting phenomena, chooses not the central 

 sun where elemental forces forever blaze and clash, but selects an out- 

 lying terrestrial nook," etc. Admitting that the soul had a free choice 

 in the matter, we must credit it with a good deal of sense in not be- 

 taking itself to a globe in which it could never by any possibility have 

 found a body. But again, I ask, is this the voice of Science ? No ; it 

 is the voice of the non-scientific and theological Mr. Fiske, who has 

 undertaken to edit, much to the latter's hurt, the scientific Mr. Fi&ke. 

 I really do not believe that the scientific Mr. Fiske knows anything 

 about any exercise of choice by the soul as to what sphere it should 

 inhabit. The latter simply knows that, under certain terrestrial con- 

 ditions, what we commonly call " soul " manifests itself — no more. 



A fine sentiment is uttered in the following passage : *' To pursue 

 unflinchingly the methods of science requires dauntless courage and a 

 faith that nothing can shake. Such courage and such loyalty to Na- 

 ture brings its own reward." Then what is the "own reward" of 

 such admirable conduct ? It is that we are enabled to see distinctly 

 "for the first time how the creating and perfecting of man is the goal 

 toward which Nature's work has all the while been tending." Here I 

 must enter a respectful protest. I can not conceive that any special 

 conclusion whatever, however edifying or comfortable, can be correctly 

 spoken of as the natural (for that is the force here of " own ") reward 

 of loyalty to truth. If loyalty to truth brings its own reicard, that 

 reward can only consist in a confirmed habit of intellectual sincerity, 

 and whatever of other moral excellence springs from such loyalty. 

 Surely the strict scientific stand-point which our author promised to 

 maintain has been badly deserted, when we are told that, if we are 

 only loyal to truth, all our conclusions will come out in the most satis- 

 factory shape. " Be loyal to truth," I should prefer to say, " and your 

 reward will be that you will discover the truth in larger measure 

 than you would otherwise do, and will have the signal advantage of 

 being able to adapt your life to the truth instead of to fiction." That, 

 in connection with strengthened moral character, seems to me to be 

 the appropriate reward of loyalty to the truth, not the confirmation 

 of any cherished theories. " The Darwinian theory," we are told, 

 "makes it (human life) seem more than ever the chief object of that 



