oing away. One says to the other,
"Been on the 'eath? What did you preach about?" "Oh," is the reply, "I
give it to Darwin an' 'Uxley to rights." Not that Mr. Braden is in any
sense ignorant, or in any way to be compared to "Punch's" field
preacher except in his evident belief that he has "give it to Darwin
an' 'Uxley to rights," and in the perfect indifference with which
Darwin and Huxley will regard his performance. Briefly, nothing worthy
of particular remark in Mr. Braden's book. Those who wish to find the
whole question between science and revealed religion set forth as it
appears to Mr. Braden, and the facts and arguments of science met by
the usual stock-in-trade weapons of the theologian and the
metaphysician, may find all this in Mr. Braden's book, in which the
author certainly does go pretty well over the whole ground. What is
really his theme is found in this passage of one of his appendices (p.
382): "The issue between theist and atheist is: What is the necessary,
absolute, uncaused, unconditioned being or substance? What is it that
is the self-existent, independent, self-sustaining and eternal? What is
the ground, source, origin, or cause of all existences and phenomena?
This is the problem of problems, that determines all systems of
science, philosophy, and thought." Well, to these questions science
answers, We don't know; we don't pretend to know, and we probably never
shall know. We have discovered by patient observation certain facts,
and, according to the laws of right reason, we think that between these
facts there are such and such relations. In this we may be mistaken. If
we are, very well; we shall be glad to correct our error. In either
case we shall go on observing, considering, and reasoning, but
confining ourselves strictly to fact. If any dogma or transcendental
notion that you know of is at variance with fact or with reason, we may
be sorry or we may not; but in either case we can't help it. Dogmas and
notions are nothing to us. And as to that self-existent, unconditioned,
eternal intelligence that you talk about, pray tell us what you know
about it. We shall be glad to learn. Don't tell us what you think,
believe, or have an inward conviction of, but what you know. What _do_
you _know_ about it? Give us at least a solid basis of absolute
knowledge to stand upon and to start from, and we are ready to listen
to you. If you cannot do this, good morning; look you after your
dogmas, and we will ke