nv NOTICE OF HERBERT Sl'KKCER 8 



/ 

 If it is urged that his sclieme is too vast for any one man to 

 accomplish, it may be replied : 1st. That it is not intended to 

 treat the various subjects exhaustively, but only to state genenil 

 principles with just sufficient details for their clear illustration. 

 2d. A considerable portion of the work is aheady issued, and 

 much more is ready for publication, while the author is still in 

 the prime of life. 3d. It must be remembered that intellects oc- 

 casionally appear, endowed with that comprehensive grasp and 

 high organizing power which fits them for vast undertakings. 

 The reader will find at the close of the volume Mr. Spencer's 

 Prospectus of his system. That he who has so clearly mapped 

 out his work is the proper one to execute it, we think will be 

 fully apparent to all who peruse the present volume. 



An impression prevails wHh many that :Mr. Spencer belongs 

 to the positive school of M. Auguste Comte. This is an entire 

 misapprehension ; but the position having been assumed by sev- 

 eral of his reviewers, he repels the charge in the following letter, 

 wliich appeared in the Hew Englmider for January, 1864. 



To the Editor of tlie New Eiiglcinder : 



^yr: — While recognizing the appreciative tone and general 

 candour of the article in your last number, entitled " Herbert Spen- 

 cer on Ultimate Religious Ideas," allow me to point out one error 

 which pervades it. The writer correctly represents the leading 

 positions of my argument, but he inadvertently conveys a wrong 

 impression respecting my tendencies and sympathies. He says 

 of me, " the spirit of his philosophy is evidently that of the so- 

 called positive method which has now many partial disciples, 

 as well as many zealous adherents among the thinkers of Eng- 

 land." Further on I am tacitly classed with " the English ad- 

 mirers and disciples of the great Positivist ; " and it is presently 

 added that " in Mr. Spencer we have an example of a positivist, 

 who does not treat the subject of religion with supercilious neg- 

 lect." Here and throughout, the implication is that I am a fol- 

 lower of Comte. This is a mistake. That M. Comte has given a 



