my part, since it is natural philosophy which is in question, I rank
myself on the side of the Natural Philosopher.

We will here terminate this review. It is time, however, which fails us,
not subject-matter, for continuing it. You may have noticed that the
name of no one of the savants of Switzerland figures in this inquiry.
Nevertheless our country would have furnished a rich mine for my
purpose. It contains (and it is one of its best privileges) a goodly
number of savants, whom the observation of the facts of matter have not
caused to forget the claims of mind, and who know how to raise their
souls to the Author of the marvels which they study. You will understand
therefore that it has not been from anxiety for my cause, but from a
motive of discretion, that I have forborne to bring into this discussion
the names of men in whom we have a near interest, and many of whom
perhaps are present in this assembly. I will take advantage of Mr.
Faraday's letter to make a single exception, by naming M. de la Rive.
More than once, and in public, we have heard him distinctly point out
the place occupied by the sciences of mind in relation to the natural
sciences, and render glory to the Creator. And I do not think that any
one, in Switzerland or elsewhere, can claim to speak with disdain, in
the name of the physical sciences, of the religious convictions boldly
professed by our learned fellow-countryman.[113]

Recollect, Gentlemen, that I have not undertaken to prove the existence
of God, by making appeal to the authority of men of science. All I have
sought to do has been to destroy a prejudice. They tell us, and scream
it at us, that the best naturalists become atheists. This is not true,
as I think I have shown. There do exist atheists who cultivate the
natural sciences,--no doubt of the fact. But even though half the whole
number of naturalists were atheists, inasmuch as other naturalists, and