in mind which makes it to be other than matter, more and higher than it, is unintelligible, if mind lies back of mind; but is intelligible under the equivalence of causes and effects, if matter is the source of mind. The distinction between the two must be ultimately lost by such a reference, and is being' daily obscured by it. Our first term of knowledge, an intelligent mind, thus sinks again in the confusion and chaos of all things. This result is clearly reached by the authors referred to. "Science, by establishing the doctrine of the persistence of force and the indestructibility of matter, has effectually disproved the hypothesis that the presence of law in nature is of itself sufficient to prove the existence of an intelligent Law-giver.*" What is this but saying that no amount of order and no relations can disclose mind, or are at all inconsistent with a reference of all things to matter. The phenomena of mind, as interpreted by human experience, thus cease to declare mind, and are made to declare matter. The indestructibility of matter and the persistence of energy within a finite field are quite other things than the eternity of either matter or energy. The first might be an ordination of mind; the second could not be. The author has assumed the equivalence of the two statements.

"Science, indeed, has proved that if there is a divine mind in nature, and if by the hypothesis such a mind exerts any causative influence on the phenomena of nature, such influence is exerted beyond the sphere of experience."+

* Ibid, p. 75.

+ Ibid, p. 74