114 
other? If we can say that every house is built by some 
man, may we not also say that the heart has had a heart- 
maker, and that he who could make it must understand what 
feeling is, what religious feeling is, what religious aspiration is, 
what all the workings of reason are, and have m himself the 
power of responding to the play of all those higher energies 
Wl Mr. Spence? wM tell us that “the universality of religious 
ideas, tlieir independent evolution among different primitive 
races and their great vitality, unite m showing that then 
source must be deep-seated instead of superficial. But what 
is thus historically true, is true also from a philosophical po ut 
of view. This religious nature is deep-seated, too deep-seated 
to be disturbed by any erratic utterance of science. Science 
might as well think of destroying reason as religion, flat it 
science could destroy reason, it would be guilty of suicide it 
would destroy itself. Mr. Spencer of course maintains that 
the religious susceptibility in man “arose by a process of 
evolution and not from an act of special creation, which is just 
to say that man arose by a process of evolution and not .from 
an act of special creation, all of which is taking matters foi 
granted which certainly have not yet been proved. Tor surely 
the religious susceptibility is as really an original elemen of 
man’s being as any other that may be pointed out. The desire 
to know, the love of the beautiful, the felt obligations to the 
idea of the right, are not more prominent in his nature than 
the religious tendency. To say that dreams may have given 
rise to the notion of spirits, and that the idea of one or more 
gods may have sprung from these creations of a dream, is to 
sav the least of it, not unlike a condition of dreaming uhile 
SI pStosina .. think. Mr. “ ‘tat. 
has about as much truth in it, when he assert that in the 
“ distorted reflection of man’s image on the wall as it were ot 
the universe, arose the idea of gods. 
15. The claim to a monopoly of reason on the part of science 
is strongly put by Buchner when he says, “Mankind is per- 
netuallv being thrown to and fro between science and religion, 
but it advances more intellectually, morally, and physically in 
nronortion as it turns away from religion to science. 1ms 
Fs what is called “advanced thought,” too far advanced, we 
imagine, in the mean time for not a few who are moving in the 
same direction. We call in question the alleged advancement, 
hut we have quoted the words as an illustration of the way m 
Avbicl) men of science have unnecessarily stirred the hostility o 
men to whom religion is dear, and claimed for science a monopoly 
of reason. If the author could have paused just to lemmd 
