142 
a " push ” of which he is equally unaware what pushes it (p. 75), 
can, after all, be so confident against " prayer for favourable 
seasons ;” or, if so determined against that kind of prayer, is not 
equally disposed to say openly that he " smiles ” at every other 
kind of prayer. At all events, as a man of science, feeling, as he 
says, " a natural pride in scientific achievement” — (though we 
should have credited Dr. Tyndall with some higher feeling and 
aim than what seems to us so poor as this “ pride,” — Newton's 
modesty seems better), he should shrink from making assertions 
which are found so entirely incommensurate with his inductions. 
14. We shall not, if we are allowed to speak for ourselves, 
consent, for our part, to have it thought that we wish the facts 
its assump- of science to be other than they are ; we will only 
facts 8 / arechai- stipulate that in science, as in all things else, the 
lenged. assertions shall keep within the limits of the facts. 
“But it is perfectly vain,” triumphantly exclaims Dr. Tyndall 
(p. 92), “ to attempt to stop inquiry as to the actual and pos- 
sible actions of matter and force; ” as if he were in bodily fear 
of some dreadful theologian very likely to attempt that feat. 
We publicly affirm that we never yet knew any educated theo- 
logian who had jealousy of any facts of science. " But depend 
upon it ” (continues Dr. Tyndall) " if a chemist, by bringing 
the proper materials together in a retort or crucible, could 
make a baby, he would do it.” No doubt he would : and more — 
we, for our part, shall raise no objection to the fact, when it 
really takes place. Let it not be assumed then that we are, at 
the present point, the anxious opponents of " the chemist.” 
Let him do> by all means, all that he can ; though, after that, 
we should still inquire, what and whence was the primary 
endowment of those molecular attractions and repulsions which 
issued in their complex organization. We well remember the 
applause of the Theatre, when we gave Dalton, at Oxford, the 
honorary degree, which the “ author of the atomic theory ” 
graciously accepted. The theologians of the Isis surely 
evinced little of jealousy; but we are not therefore precluded 
from pointing out still the unscientific character of any 
approach to the assertion, or assumption, that we know 
all about the beginnings of vitality, or its inner nature, or 
its invariable treatment. Even if the Darwinian evolution 
were ultimately established as science (as Dr. Tyndall owns, 
p. 159), it would still remain true, that the human mind would 
seek to " look behind the germ ” and “ inquire into the history 
of its genesis.” 
15. When Dr. Tyndall thus confesses that "of the inner 
quality that enables matter to act on matter we know nothing,” 
