164 
is something which “ enables matter to act on matter,” and then he assumes 
that it is “ an inner quality” of matter, of which we know “ nothing ! ” 
{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 Napoleon 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 ! 
The inconsistency between the Professor’s principles of Universal 
Materialism, and such a reference as this to a Supreme Yolition, 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 universe, 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 ! Religion, 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 fundamental 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 under 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. 
