I8S3.1 
Analyses of Books. 
171 
, fl a ^f ^? rs , *bat the learned and voluble dodlor communicated 
0 le lodern Review,” in 1880, an article with the title “ On 
the Forces behind Nature.” Whether any such forces exist 
mus , of course, depend upon the connotation which we 'ive to 
the term “ Nature.” But what was the head and fronVof the 
offending of his old enemies the Spiritualists, save that they 
admit forces other than those commonly recognised as natural^ 
How are the mighty fallen 1 If there are forces (? energies)’ 
peisonal or impersonal, behind Nature, which we here neither 
a[w, n ° r ir 117 ’ , they must be either regular or capricious in their 
r,n , c % 14 ie ^ ular ’ the y ma y and should be studied. If capri- 
r g one S . CienCe beC ° meS im P oss ible, and Dr. Carpenter’s avocation 
Tv^ii Vinn ! followin £ on the same side, denounces Professor 
lyndah,— who as a correspondent shows is no Materialist,— ore 
subvert the f S US “ . a11 unverified theories must tend to 
vert the fundamental principles on which our morality and 
ral tv M ° St theories have no faring upon our mo- 
lts code whlch > moreover, can alter its bases without altering 
ip^nf her i’ r r 'r Win ! P ronounces Pr of. Tyndall to be “the sub- 
J *W ° f Unbehef ! n wbat 18 true,” and devoid “of a due faith in 
whatever is good and profitable to humanity.” Can Dr Winn 
“ sifbvlrt” W ^ Charg f S ? , not - ma y the y not possibly 
subvert his own morality and that of his readers ? 
“cens 1 B rpf a ^m° t r her ° f the Same sch ool— is said to 
censure J. S. Mil for teaching that all the laws of Nature are 
unfailing, and, furthermore, for stating that this fadt must form 
^ff^ aj0r ' P - rem r S ,V n 7 Cry argument on such obscure subjects 
death?” ^ ° f lfe ’ ° f generatlon ’ of development, decay, and 
Now here we regret that we cannot absolutely agree with Dr 
Davey. Our laws of Nature-so-called-are the results of in- 
duction, and our inductions are never quite complete. Hence 
we aie not warranted in pronouncing any event impossible, though 
1 f le u y justified in applying the most severe scrutiny to 
whatever deviates from the sum total of authentically recorded 
expei lence. Should anyone tell us that he has discovered in 
e\v Gruinea, or in the interior of Africa, a warm-blooded animal 
a mammal, provided with three pairs of limbs, we should be 
justmed in examining the narrative of the discoverer very closely 
and even in suspending judgment until a specimen of the creature 
iad been examined by some competent authority and proved to 
t>e not a monstrosity, but a normally developed being. But we 
should not be justified, as some persons of eminence do in 
^nonng the evidence offered. 
On the other hand, it seems to us that if natural phenomena 
are controlled by will,— or at least by any will save that of a 
tfeing ex liypothesi immutable,— then all Science is impossible. 
N 2 
