vious fact. It is there that I think it possible to recognise the position Dr. 
Irons has taken up in speaking of the psalmist. What I understood Dr. Irons 
to say was, that as a mere matter of fact, man had been praying all over the 
world, and in all ages, and that this psychological reality must have had the 
same cause. I have been accustomed to think a good deal of that remark of 
Coleridge’s, in which he asks “ Where did the atheist get his idea of the God 
whose existence he denies ? ” And I want to apply that thought of 
Coleridge’s to this subject. You will never find an atheist who will be able 
to answer this question satisfactorily to himself. You say to him, “ You 
deny the existence of God ; but where did you get your idea of God ? What 
put it into your head to deny the existence of such a being ? Whence came 
the idea you have formed of the God you deny ? ” He will probably answer, 
“ I got it from my mother.” But then comes the question, “ From where did 
she get it ? ” There must be an entity to account for the idea. Now I wish to 
put this question in the same way. Nothing could be more pertinent or just 
than that, when we get into our pulpits, we should take the scriptural 
ground upon such a subjeet ; but here we come to maintain the position that 
the Scripture itself being assailed has nothing to fear when before the tribunal 
of Science. We take up then the argument of our’antagonists, on which it is 
sought to put the question of scriptural belief, and on examining the grounds 
of these arguments we find that they prove nothing. You find it to be one 
of the characteristics of man that he is always found with a capacity and a 
tendency to prayer, and that he is the only being in whom we find that capa- 
city and that tendency. There is no animal below man in which we find 
that capacity, and we have never found a single variety of man that is desti- 
tute of it. In all ages, and in all parts of the world, we find man yielding to 
this “ superstition,” which we are told ought to be exploded in ten years. 
Professor Tyndall says the relation of physics to consciousness is invariable ; 
but it is clearly not so, for Christian men come into a state of consciousness 
which they attribute to the spiritual action of an unseen intelligence with 
whom they believe themselves to be in communion. But at all events they 
have the consciousness which they are quite certain is not due to physics or 
to physical causes ; and until Professor Tyndall has made his case good, he 
has no right to draw the conclusion he asks us to adopt. He admits that the 
molecular groupings he refers to explain nothing in reality. Well, if it be 
the fact that they explain nothing, we want to know, what is the use of them. 
There is no man more competent than Professor Tyndall to come into court 
and state what he believes ; but I must object to the conclusions he has 
arrived at on this subject. I object to much that one reads and hears put 
forward in this sort of tone. It is often said that people who admit the 
operation of a law ought of necessity to admit also a law-giver, and that the 
law-giver has power to change, or abrogate, or suspend his own law ; but this 
admission is very seldom made. On the contrary, we are standing front to 
front with a system which says that every particle of matter has its own pro- 
perties, which are capable of making a bubble in the crucible, and that at all 
events those properties reside in the particles ; but another party says “ No ; 
