Evolution, so understood, seemed rightly or wrongly to be mere mysticism or intellectual juggling. It took leave of fact, or managed by some illegitimate process to give to a crude generalisation from experience the appearance of a purely logical deduction. In this shape, therefore, it was really opposed to science, although the time was to come in which evolution would present itself in a scientific form.[641] Meanwhile, the concessions made by J. S. Mill were not approved by his fellows, and would have been regarded as little short of treason by the older Utilitarians. The two schools, if Coleridge's followers could be called a school, regarded each other's doctrines as simply contradictory. In appealing to experience and experience alone, the Utilitarians, as their opponents held, had reduced the world to a dead mechanism, destroyed every element of cohesion, made society a struggle of selfish interests, and struck at the very roots of all order, patriotism, poetry, and religion. They retorted that their critics were blind adherents of antiquated prejudice, and sought to cover superstition and despotism either by unprovable dogmatic assertions, or by taking refuge in a cloudy mystical jargon, which really meant nothing. They did not love each other. FOOTNOTES: [610] See _Dictionary of National Biography_, under 'George Grote.' Bentham's MS. is in the British Museum, and shows, I think, that Grote's share in the work was a good deal more than mere editing. I quote from a reprint by Truelove (1875). It was also privately reprinted by Grote himself in 1866. [611] Cf. Hobbes's definition: 'Fear of power invisible feigned by the mind, or imagined from tales publicly allowed, [is] Religion: not allowed, Superstition. And when the power imagined is truly such as we imagine, True Religion.'--_Works_ (Molesworth), iii. 45. [612] 'Philip Beauchamp,' ch. ii. pp. 11-15. [613] _Ibid._ p. 17. [614] 'Philip Beauchamp,' p. 21. [615] _Ibid._ pp. 22 and 104. [616] 'Philip Beauchamp,' ch. iii. [617] 'Philip Beauchamp,' ch. iv. [618] _Ibid._ p. 45, ch. v. [619] _Ibid._ p. 52, ch. vi. [620] 'Philip Beauchamp,' ch. viii. [621] _Ibid._ part ii. ch. i. [622] _Ibid._ p. 80, part ii. ch. ii. [623] 'Philip Beauchamp,' pp. 97, 99. [624] _Ibid._ p. 101. [625] _Ibid._ p. 103. [626] 'Philip Beauchamp,' p. 163. [627] _Ibid._ p. 122. [628] The writers were Chalmers, Kidd, Whewell, Sir Charles Bell, Roget, Buckland, Kirby, and Prout. The essays appeared from 1833 to 1835. The versatile Brougham shortly afterwards edited Paley's _Natural Theology_. [629] 'Philip Beauchamp,' p. 88. [630] Froude's _Carlyle_, i. 215; ii. 93. [631] Mill's _Dissertations_, i. 235; ii. 130. [632] George Borrow's vehement dislike of Scott as the inventor of Puseyism and modern Jesuitism of all kinds is characteristic. [633] _Prelude_, bk. xiii. [634] Coleridge's _Letters_ (1890), pp. 643-49.