TYNDALUS REPLY TO HIS CRITICS. 427 



my first preface, on which the foregoing remark of Bishop Fraser, and 

 similar remarks of his ecclesiastical colleagues, not to mention those 

 of less responsible writers, are founded, I leave the decision of the 

 question whether their mode of presenting this paragraph to the pub- 

 lic be straightforward or the reverse. 



These minor and more pm-ely personal matters at an end, the 

 weightier allegation remains that at Belfast I misused my position by 

 quitting the domain of science, and making an unjustifiable raid into 

 the domain of theology. This I fail to see. Laying aside abuse, I 

 hope my accusers will consent to reason with me. Is it not competent 

 for a scientific man to speculate on the antecedents of the solar sys- 

 tem ? Did Kant, Laplace, and William Herschel, quit their legitimate 

 spheres when they prolonged the intellectual vision beyond the boun- 

 dary of experience, and propounded the nebular theory ? Accepting 

 that theory as probable, is it not permitted to a scientific man to fol- 

 low up in idea the series of changes associated with the condensation 

 of the nebulae ; to picture the successive detachment of planets and 

 moons, and the relation of all of them to the sun? If I look upon our 

 earth, with its orbital revolution and axial rotation, as one small issue 

 of the process which made the solar system what it is, will any theo- 

 logian deny my right to entertain and express this theoretic view? 

 Time was when a multitude of theologians would be found to do so 

 when that arch-enemy of science which now vaunts its tolerance 

 would have made a speedy end of the man who might venture to publish 

 any opinion of the kind. But that time, unless the world is caught 

 strangely slumbering, is forever past. 



As regards inorganic Nature, then, I may traverse, without let or 

 hinderance, the whole distance w T hich separates the nebulae from the 

 worlds of to-day. But only a few years ago this now conceded ground 

 of science was theological ground. I could by no means regard this 

 as the final and sufficient concession of theology; and at Belfast I 

 thought it not only my right but my duty to state that, as regards the 

 organic world, we must enjoy the freedom which we have already won 

 in regard to the inorganic. I could not discern the shred of a title- 

 deed which gave any man, or any class of men, the right to open the 

 door of one of these worlds to the scientific searcher, and to close the 

 other against him. And I considered it frankest, wisest, and in the 

 long-run most conducive to permanent peace, to indicate without eva- 

 sion or reserve the ground that belongs to Science, and to which she 

 will assuredly make good her claim. 



Considering the freedom allowed to all manner of opinions in Eng- 

 land, surely this was no extravagant position for me to assume. I 

 have been reminded that an eminent predecessor of mine in the presi- 

 dential chair expressed a totally different view of the Cause of things 

 from that enunciated by me. In doing so he transgressed the bounds 



