230 DA B WIN I AN A. 



for the explanation of the facts. Whether the philos- 

 ophy of Herbert Spencer (which is not to our liking) 

 is here fairly presented, we have little occasion and no 

 time to consider. In this regard, the close of his article 

 No. 12 in the Contemporary Review shows, at least, 

 his expectation of the entire permanence of our ideas 

 of cause, origin, and religion, and predicts the futility 

 of the expectation that the " religion of humanity " 

 will be the religion of the future, or " can ever more 

 than temporarily shut out the thought of a Power, of 

 which humanity is but a small and fugitive product, 

 which was in its course of ever-changing manifestation 

 before humanity was, and will continue through other 

 manifestations when humanity has ceased to be." If, 

 on the one hand, the philosophy of the unknowable of 

 the Infinite may be held in a merely quasi-theistic or 

 even atheistic way, were not its ablest expounders aud 

 defenders Hamilton and Dean Mansel ? One would 

 suppose that Dr. Dawson might discern at least as much 

 of a divine foundation to Nature as Herbert Spencer 

 and Matthew Arnold ; might recognize in this power 

 that " something not ourselves that makes " for order 

 as well as " for righteousness," and which he fitly terms 

 supreme creative will ; and, resting in this, endure with 

 more complacency and faith the inevitable prevalence 

 of evolutionary views which he is powerless to hinder. 

 Although he cannot arrest the stream, he might do 

 something toward keeping it in safe channels. 



We wished to say something about the way in 

 which scientific men, worthy of the name, hold hy- 

 potheses and theories, using them for the purpose of 

 investigation and the collocation of facts, yielding or 



