Now this interpretation of causality as the immediate outcome of existence must be considered first as a theory of causation, and next as a theory in relation to Theism.  As a theory of causation it has not met with the approval of mathematicians, physicists, or logicians, leading representatives of all these departments of thought having expressly opposed it, while, so far as I am aware, no representative of any one of them has spoken in its favour[23].  But with this point I am not at present concerned, for even if the theory were admitted to furnish a full and complete explanation of causality, it would still fail to account for the harmonious relation of causes, or the fact with which we are now alone concerned.  This distinction is not perceived by the anonymous author ‘Physicus,’ who, in his Candid Examination of Theism, lays great stress upon Mr. Spencer’s theory of causation as subversive of Theism, or at least as superseding the necessity of theistic hypothesis by furnishing a full explanation of the order of Nature on purely physical grounds.  But he fails to perceive that even if Mr. Spencer’s theory were conceded fully to explain all the facts of causality, it would in no wise tend to explain the cosmos in which these facts occur.  It may be true that causation depends upon the ’persistence of force’:  it does not follow that all manifestations of force should on this account have been directed to occur as they do occur.  For, if we follow back any sequence of physical causation, we soon find that it spreads out on all sides into a network of physical relations which are literally infinite both in space (conditions) and in time (antecedent causes).  Now, even if we suppose that the persistence of force is a sufficient explanation of the occurrence of the particular sequence contemplated so far as the exhibition of force is there concerned, we are thus as far as ever from explaining the determination of this force into the particular channel through which it flows.  It may be quite true that the resultant is determined as to magnitude and direction by the components; but what about the magnitude and direction of the components?  If it is said that they in turn were determined by the outcome of previous systems, how about these systems?  And so on till we spread away into the infinite network already mentioned.  Only if we knew the origin of all series of all such systems could we be in a position to say that an adequate intelligence might determine beforehand by calculation the state of any one part of the universe at any given instant of time.  But, as the series are infinite both in number and extent, this knowledge is clearly out of the question.  Moreover, even if it could be imagined as possible, it could only be so imagined at the expense of supposing an origin of physical causation in time; and this amounts to supposing a state of things prior to such causation, and out of which it arose.  But to suppose this is to suppose