160 



least I have not said in it a single word which Professor Tyndall could justly 

 consider offensive, or which, however misapprehended, scientific men can 

 regard as evincing a wish to travel out of my proper course in order to attack 

 them. I have shown what I deem to be certain of their weak points. Some 

 of them have denied themselves the great consolations of religion, and I have 

 been anxious, if possible, to win them over, and to show them that they are 

 not so philosophical as we. We know their side, and they do not know ours. 

 A large number of the readers of Professor Tyndall's book are among the 

 clergy, for religioas men gladly study scientific books ; but on the other hand 

 I believe scientific ]nen only take homoeopathic doses of theology — similia 

 similibus — they take only what suits themselves. I do wish we could only 

 get them to read our side of the question. As to the gentlemen who have now 

 addressed us, a few words. One inquiry brought forward was, — Where did 

 the atheist get his notion, or how was he certain of his denial of the existence 

 of God ? The speaker who took that line quite forgot that a large and most 

 powerful school of unbelievers is as much aware as he is, that it would be the 

 height of presumption to say there is no God. Herbert Spencer, who is as 

 calm an unbeliever as you can find, rather says — " I don't affirm there is no 

 God. I am simply between the two statements. Some say there is a God ; 

 some say there is not. I only say I am not aware of it." Then, by another 

 speaker, the universality of prayer has been denied. I can only say that I 

 did not affirm more than I thought to be the fact. I affirmed man to be a 

 praying creature wherever, bond fide, he is found ; but I did not mean to 

 extend the observation to every member of the human race, inclusive of those 

 who have been almost hunted out of their humanity. I do not think indi- 

 vidual exceptions would alter the broad fact that man has an ineradicable 

 tendency and capacity to pray. I have dealt with it as a theological fact ; 

 but I have not attempted to push the argument beyond what I thought the 

 premisses allowed. If any one thinks I have urged one argument unfairly, I 

 should be glad if he would show it. I feel sure, at least, that Professor 

 Tyndall would allow that I have done him no injustice. It has been said 

 by another, that we should remember that scientific men admit that there is 

 a germ of force behind phenomena, a something they cannot get at. I ask, 

 whether I did not fully admit this ? and why did the speaker argue as if I 

 had left out what, in fact, was one main consideration of my paper ? That 

 inconsistency in men of science is the very point of my argument. I wish it 

 to be understood, too, that I did not attempt or intend to prove that prayer 

 was always answered, or that there was a specific kind of revelation to that 

 eff'ect. This was not my business. What I did show was, that Professor 

 Tyndall's book contained nothing which ought to teach us the desirability of 

 giving up saying our prayers. It seems that Professor Tyndall, when at 

 Norwich, made so amiable and gentle a speech to one who addressed us to- 

 night, that he almost persuaded that speaker that he was a Christian. (I may 

 say that I have had this feeling myself, both about Professor Tyndall and 

 Herbert Spencer, that at times they go so far towards the mark, and are so 

 well-spoken, that I cannot help thinking they must, as upright, conscientious 



