86 



[Proc. B.N.F.C., 



approach to the Lucretian maxim that ' Nature is seen to do all 

 things spontaneously of herself, without the intermeddling ot the 

 gods.'" 



This, then, is the position which, however reluctantly, still with 

 confidence of its propriety, I feel warranted in taking as regards 

 Professor Tyndall's address, viewed in its general bearing and 

 aspect. We have seen how it was at once understood and received, 

 not only by our fellow-townsmen, but by the public at large. In 

 London and New York alike — by the public journals, from the 

 Times to Punch, it was understood as advocating materialistic 

 opinions of the most pronounced description. Unmistakably 

 and avowedly, the Christian revelation having been first recognised 

 as a fact, professing as that revelation does to throw light on the 

 origin of life, and on the future, after life is ended, the guesses 

 and dreams of Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius are preferred 

 to this proffered guidance. Professor Tyndall now assures the 

 world that not only the members of the British Association who 

 heard his address, but that the public in general are mistaken as 

 to his meaning, that he is neither a Materialist nor an Atheist. Be 

 it so, but my averment is, that in such a case as this, and in the 

 delivery of such an address, the deliverer of it should have taken 

 such precaution in the employment of his terms that no such 

 dubiousness of meaning should have arisen. The blame arising 

 from the general misconception of his meaning which has ensued, 

 evidently rests, not with the many who misunderstood what was 

 intended, but with him who employed such evidently ambiguous 

 language. 



If, however, the learned professor prefers to adopt the line of 

 defence which some of his friends have employed on his behalf — 

 namely, that his has been a bold, outspoken, chivalrous avowal of 

 opinion for which he is more to be praised than blamed — I cannot 

 but remark that there is a wide distinction, at times, between 

 chivalry and real courage, and that the former is often exercised at 

 the expense and risk of others, while the latter never exposes to 

 peril and risk any but self. If, in his chivalrous defence of what 



