452 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



This usage is recalled to me by the contrast between the compliment 

 with which Mr. Harrison begins his article, " The Ghost of Religion," 

 and the efforts he afterward makes to destroy, in the brilliant style 

 habitual with him, all but the negative part of that which he applauds. 

 After speaking with too-flattering eulogy of the mode in which I have 

 dealt with current theological doctrines, he does his best, amid the 

 flashes of wit coming from its polished surface, to pass the sword of 

 his logic through the ribs of my argument, and let out its vital prin- 

 ciple — that element in it which is derived from the religious ideas and 

 sentiments that have grown up along with human evolution, but which 

 is inconsistent with the creed Mr. Harrison preaches. 



So misleading was the professed agreement with which he com- 

 menced his article, that, as I read on, I was some time in awakening 

 to the fact that I had before me not a friend, but, controversially 

 speaking, a determined enemy, who was seeking to reduce, as he would 

 say to a ghostly form, that surviving element of religion which, as I 

 had contended. Agnosticism contains. Even when this dawned on me, 

 the suavity of Mr. Harrison's first manner continued so influential that 

 I entertained no thought of defending myself. It was only after per- 

 ceiving that what he modestly calls " a rider " was described by one 

 journal as " a criticism keen, trenchant, destructive," while by some 

 other journals kindred estimates of it were formed, that I decided to 

 make a reply as soon as pending engagements allowed. 



Recognizing, then, the substance of Mr. Harrison's article as being 

 an unsparing assault on the essential part of that doctrine which I 

 have set forth, I shall here not scruple to defend it in the most effect- 

 ive way I can : not allowing the laudation with which Mr. Harrison 

 prefaces his ridicule, to negative such rejoinders, incisive as I can 

 make them, as will best serve my purpose. 



A critic who, in a recent number of the " Edinburgh Review," tells 

 the world in very plain language what he thinks about a book of mine, 

 and who has been taken to task by the editor of " Knowledge " for 

 his injustice, refers to Mr. Harrison (whom he describes in felicitous 

 phrase as looking at me from " a very opposite pole ") as being, on one 



only in its last section have I been able (without undue interruption of my argument) to 

 refer to points in Sir James Stephen's criticism. 



Concerning his criticism generally, I may remark that it shows me how dangerous it is 

 to present separately, in brief space, conclusions which it has taken a large space to jus- 

 tify. Unhappily, twelve pages do not suffice for adequate exposition of a philosophical 

 system, or even of its bases ; and misapprehension is pretty certain to occur if a statement 

 contained in twelve pages is regarded as more than a rude outline. If Sir James Stephen 

 will refer to §§ 49-20*7 of the " Principles of Sociology," occupying 850 pages, I fancy 

 that instead of seeming to him" weak," the evidence there given of the origin of religious 

 ideas will seem to him very strong ; and I venture also to think that if he will refer to 

 "First Principles," §§ 24-26, § 50, t5§ 58-61, § 194, and to the "Principles of Psy- 

 chology," §§ 347-351, he may find that what he thinks " an unmeaning pla}'ing with 

 words" has more meaning than appears at first sight. 



