Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 16.djvu/431

Rh his works, that his conclusions will not meet with any considerable acceptance. The fact that they are Christian in their essence is rather a hindrance to their acceptance, since conventional Christianity practically repudiates the ideal morality of its founder."

The presidents of colleges have found themselves called upon to define their position in regard to the "Data of Ethics," and their outgivings, though somewhat discordant, are none the less instructive.

It is now nearly ten years since President Porter, of Yale, in a little book on "Man," said in relation to Herbert Spencer: "No well-read student of philosophy can hesitate to believe that, notwithstanding the zeal of his admirers, he will cease to be the wonder of the hour; that as soon as the secret of his plausibility is exposed he will suffer a more complete neglect than he will fairly deserve." These were ominous words, and coming from such a source they led many to expect that very soon some powerful hand would strip the mask from a pretender and consign him to speedy oblivion. Meantime, the lugubrious prophecy remained unfulfilled. Dr. Porter, however, continues to be of the same mind, and after this long time he comes forward and with unseemly malediction again foretells the unmasking of this pretentious writer, whom he elsewhere likens to a "dexterous juggler." Yet, instead of collapsing and vanishing in accordance with this portentous Porterian programme, Spencer emerges in a new field into which the President of Yale finds it necessary to follow him with a six-columned article in "The Independent." Some pleasant things are said of the "Data of Ethics" and its author, but Mr. Spencer is sharply indicted for not making enough of the metaphysical notion of personality. Dr. Porter declares: "Indeed, personality is a conception which is utterly foreign to any and every part of his theory, as it logically should be. This grand and damning defect will one day be discovered and confessed when the factitious glamour which now invests it is dispelled."

Theologians have ever been free in the application of damnatory expletives to scientific ideas which do not conform to their standards, and the President is here merely conforming to the long prevalent custom of his party. But, so long as these execrable defects of Spencer's theories are yet spoken of as things to be "one day discovered," would it not be well to pretermit this little game of sinister augury, and be content to curse defects already discovered?

The President of the College of New Jersey has also paid his respects to the "Data of Ethics" in the "Princeton Review," but he is at wide disagreement with his brother of Yale. In fact, they are squarely antagonistic in their estimates of Spencer, past, present, and future. Dr. McCosh does, not think that he is either a sham to be exposed, or a thinker to be soon forgotten. He opens his article by saying: "Herbert Spencer commands our respect by his terrible earnestness. He has an end to live for, and he lives for it. For it he has given up professional pursuits and profits (he was an engineer), and for many years immediate fame and popularity. For at least thirty years a grand system of speculative physics founded on the recent discoveries in biology has been developing in his brain, and he must unfold it and give it forth in spite of obstacles, with or without encouragement from surroundings in the world. He is to a large extent the author, and is certainly the organizer and the very embodiment, personification, and expression of development." Again Dr. McCosh says: "What may be the estimate of his philosophy at the end of this century I will not take upon myself to predict. As embracing so many