it of the age by
observing, as he settles his collar, that the development theory is quite
"the thing" is a result of definite processes, if we could only trace
them. "Mental attitudes," and "predispositions," however vague in
consciousness, have not vague causes, any more than the "blind motions of
the spring" in plants and animals.

The word "Rationalism" has the misfortune, shared by most words in this
gray world, of being somewhat equivocal. This evil may be nearly
overcome by careful preliminary definition; but Mr. Lecky does not supply
this, and the original specific application of the word to a particular
phase of biblical interpretation seems to have clung about his use of it
with a misleading effect. Through some parts of his book he appears to
regard the grand characteristic of modern thought and civilization,
compared with ancient, as a radiation in the first instance from a change
in religious conceptions. The supremely important fact, that the gradual
reduction of all phenomena within the sphere of established law, which
carries as a consequence the rejection of the miraculous, has its
determining current in the development of physical science, seems to have
engaged comparatively little of his attention; at least, he gives it no
prominence. The great conception of universal regular sequence, without
partiality and without caprice--the conception which is the most potent
force at work in the modification of our faith, and of the practical form
given to our sentiments--could only grow out of that patient watching of
external fact, and that silencing of preconceived notions, which are
urged upon the mind by the problems of physical science.

There is not room here to explain and justify the impressions of
dissatisfaction which have been briefly indicated, but a serious writer
like Mr. Lecky will not find such suggestions altogether useless. The
objections, even the misunderstandings, of a reader who is not careless
or ill-disposed, may serve to stimulate an author's vigilance over his
thoughts as well as his style. It would be gratifying to see some future
proof that Mr. Lecky has acquired juster views than are implied in the
assertion that philosophers of the sensational school "can never rise to
the conception of the disinterested;" and that he has freed himself from
all temptation to that mingled laxity of statement and ill-pitched
elevation of tone which are painfully present in the closing pages of