112 
scientific mind. It presents that mind, as we sometimes meet 
it as one-sided, illogical, raising a false issue, and seeking its 
end by false analogies. Its claim to a monopoly of reason is a 
loud one. And hence it can say with a boldness which is at 
the antipodes of a noble courage, “ Orthodoxy is the Bourbon 
of the world of thought, and that extinguished theologians lie 
about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes 
beside that of Hercules.” (Huxley.) This, to say the least of 
it, is loud enough. Another writer (Buchner) rather more 
loud than the former, and who indeed takes the former to 
task for lack of courage, in not carrying Ins scientific findings 
to their logical results, says, “Science has destroyed for ever 
the distinction between God and the universe. Thus it has 
destroyed the distinction between reason _ and the universe. 
What, then, has science left us? Something less than our- 
selves. And yet, somehow or other, that universe that knows 
no God, has formed the conception of God and given it to us ; 
has formed the conception of something greater than itself, 
and imbedded that conception deep in our nature, so that 
reason refuses to pause at that universe as its resting-place, 
while it has the thought of a centre grander and more glorious 
Even we, it would appear, have received what the universe did 
not possess, and to which there is no response Dumb, deal, 
blind mother, if we can call the universe by that name, why 
did she give us a voice she cannot hear, and great wants she 
cannot see, and a weakness she cannot relieve, and a heart 
with yearnings to which she has no response . We have many 
complaints but no one to complain to. She that formed the 
ear cannot hear. If science has thus robbed us of the P® r ' 
sonal God, science should be prosecuted as the greatest truet 
that ever vexed the human heart. “ The hmge-pomt of the 
controversy between naturalism and belief m a.God, says the 
same writer. “ is the question whether reason is before nature 
or in it ” There is no doubt at all about the answer which 
he would give. This something that he calls reason is not m 
his thought associated with a personal God, And yet what 
can it be? We shall have occasion, a little further on, to see 
how he gets a human reason evolved. But we have quoted 
these words because of the admission that reason is met wita 
in nature. When prosecuting science we are face to face with 
reason. In searching among the phenomena of the universe, 
in seeking to interpret their meaning, in trying to get .at the 
law or idea or thought that is behind them, science is face to 
face with reason. Reason is looking out from amid these 
phenomena, revealing itself to some eye that can see it ; 
thought is speaking to thought. Reason is thus something 
