34 THE LIGHT OF DAY 



cess known to science. The facts that confirm it, 

 if facts there are, lie entirely outside of the domain 

 of scientific inquiry, direct or indirect. 



As a matter of fact, and within the range of 

 scientific demonstration, the difference between the 

 Christian and the non-Christian, between the moral 

 and the orthodox citizen, in our day, is as little as 

 the difference between Whig and Tory, or Republi- 

 can and Democrat — a difference of belief and of 

 outward observance, and in no sense a fundamental 

 difference of life and character. Is it probable that 

 a scientific commission could establish any essential 

 differences, say between Professor Tyndall and Pro- 

 fessor Drummond, any differences which the latter 

 owed to his orthodoxy that enhanced his worth as a 

 man, as a citizen, as a father, as a husband, or as a 

 man of trust and responsibility, over and above the 

 former ? It would probably be found that both 

 possessed " that inbred loyalty unto virtue " of Sir 

 Thomas Browne which certainly is the main matter 

 in this world, and more 's the pity if it is not the 

 main matter in the next. 



Our professor's argument from analogy breaks 

 down on nearly every page by his confounding the 

 particular with the universal, and substituting the 

 exceptional, the hypothetical, for the natural and 

 provable. The error is the same as if Bishop 

 Butler had sought to prove from the general course 

 of nature, such as the changing of worms into flies, 

 the hatching of eggs into birds, the passage of in- 

 fancy into manhood, etc., that some particular men 



