TYNDALVS REPLY TO HIS CRITICS. 439 



of consciousness enter as links in the chain of antecedence and se- 

 quence which give rise to bodily actions and to other states of con- 

 sciousness ; or are they merely by-products, which are not essential 

 to the physical processes going on in the brain ? Now, it is perfectly 

 certain that we have no power of imagining states of consciousness 

 interposed between the molecules of the brain, and influencing the 

 transference of motion among the molecules. The thought " eludes 

 all mental presentation ; " and hence the logic seems of iron strength 

 which claims for the brain an automatic action, uninfluenced by states 

 of consciousness. But it is, I believe, admitted by those who hold the 

 automaton-theory that states of consciousness are ]?roduced by the 

 marshaling of the molecules of the brain ; and this production of con- 

 sciousness by molecular motion is certainly quite as unthinkable as 

 the production of molecular motion by consciousness. If, therefore, 

 unthinkability be the proper test, we must equally reject both classes 

 of phenomena. I, for my part, reject neither, and thus stand in the 

 presence of two Incomprehensibles, instead of one Incomprehensible. 

 While accepting fearlessly the facts of materialism dwelt upon in these 

 pages, I bow my head in the dust before that mystery of the brain 

 which has hitherto defied its own penetrative power, and which may 

 ultimately resolve itself into a demonstrable impossibility of self-pene- 

 tration. 1 



But, whatever be the fate of theory, the practical monitions are plain 

 enough, which declare that on our dealings with matter depends our 

 weal or woe, physical and moral. The state of mind which rebels 

 against the recognition of the claims of " materialism " is not unknown 

 to me. I can remember a time when I regarded my body as a weed, 

 so much more highly did I prize the conscious strength and pleasure 

 derived from moral and religious feeling, which, I may add, was mine 

 without the intervention of dogma. The error was not an ignoble 

 one, but this did not save it from the penalty attached to error. Saner 

 knowledge taught me that the body is no weed, and that if it were 

 treated as such it would infallibly avenge itself. Am I personally 

 lowered by this change of front ? Not so. Give me their health, and 

 there is no spiritual experience of those earlier years no resolve of 

 duty, or work of mercy, no act of self-denial, no solemnity of thought, 

 no joy in the life and aspects of Nature, that would not still be mine. 

 And this without the least reference or regard to any purely personal 

 reward or punishment looming in the future. 



As I close these remarks, the latest melancholy wail of the Bishop 

 of Peterborough reaches my ears. Notwithstanding all their "expan- 

 siveness," both he and his brother of Manchester appear, alas ! to 

 know as little of the things which belong to our peace as that wild 

 ritualist who, a day or two ago, raised the cry of " excommunicated 

 heretic ! " against the Bishop of Natal. Happily we have among us 



1 See Tyndall's "Fragments of Science," article "Scientific Materialism." 



