164 



is something which enables matter to act on matter," and then he assumes 

 that it is " an umer quality" of matter, of which we know " nothing I *' 

 (Section 15.) 



It would seem to require courage of an unusual kind (or, perhaps, a suspicion 

 that materialism had been too strongly expressed) to enable Professor Tyndall 

 after this to quote a popular story of some saying of Xapoleon I., as to " Who 

 made the starry heavens ? " — and then to wind off with words which might 

 afterwards be quoted to hint that there is a materialism which is not 

 necessarily Atheism I 



The inconsistency between the Professor's principles of Universal 

 Materialism, and such a reference as this to a Supreme Volition, is transparent, 

 even though it should, for the time, save the Theism of here and there a 

 speculator. Professor Tyndall is obliged to own that in the imiverse, which 

 he at first describes as so bound fast in fate that the " relation of physics even 

 to human consciousness is invariable," {Section 12), other and unseen agencies 

 innumerable are constantly at work, beyond all the " molecules " he can tell 

 us of ! Eeligion, however, we remind him, requires no further concession at 

 first than a place for the " unseen agencies." So also prayer needs no more : 

 but the Professor, we conclude, does not perceive this, because he has not 

 studied the subject. If he would not think it too theological, abstruse, and 

 hard, we would suggest he might begin by reading Mr. Croll's careful paper, 

 entitled — "What determines molecular motion — the fimdamental problem 

 of nature ? 



A love of truth, and a love of thoroughness, oblige us to dwell somewhat 

 longer on the inconsistencies of this materialism in its controversy with religion. 

 When pressed at any time by the charge that the absolute material necessity 

 of universal nature destroys all reasonable religion, the materialists imder our • 

 Professor's teaching will answer that, even if theologians quietly consent to 

 give up their rationality, they still may rule supreme in the splendid 

 domain of the " emotional.'' This means, apparently, that men may hope, 

 and fear, and love, and so on, as irrationally as they please. Of course, this 

 may suit the Professor ; but it looks to thinkers like insult, and a mockery 

 of the whole subject. For the plain answer is this : — Are not these 

 " emotions " as entirely subject to your " material laws of the universe," as 

 all the physical phenomena around us ? If they are so, with what rationality 

 and consistency can we be referred to the "■ emotional for a religion beyond 

 the domain of science ? 



The clergymen whom the Professor praises for refusing to pray for fine 

 weather, most probably are as illogical thinkers as he is ; otherwise, they would 

 see that he has furnished them with premisses so comprehensive as to sweep 

 away all their prayer-books, and something more, in the conclusions. They 

 have yet, perhaps, to discover that no ingenuity can make a reasonable place 

 for any part of religion, if it be granted that the constitution of the universe 

 is unalterable in every particular, and cannot but be exactly what it is. Any 

 simple example taken from Scripture, or from any book of devotions in any 

 of the churches, might bring this very closely home to a religious mind. 



