Let any reflect, for example, on such words as these — spoken by a prophet 
to God Himself, and expressing a truth for ns all — “ Thou wilt keep him in 
perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee , because he trusteth in Thee.” 
Let this be rationally examined on the principles of universal and 
unalterable materialism, and the result is of this kind : — 
( The man who knows the unalterableness of every element of existence, 
may have a quiet reliance on this "knowledge , come what may ! If, through 
any defect of his own, he has not this reliance, he may be unreasonable, but 
yet his own unreasonableness (if that word be at all admissible) is a part of the 
necessity of his original constitution, and so of his present condition ; and, 
therefore, it is not unreasonable, but natural, and is even an inevitable or 
necessary result ; and, therefore, so, it is to be acquiesced in, as really at the 
same time reasonable — even if unreasonable — which, of course, is absurd ! ’ 
Advise a person thus reflecting to have recourse to the “ emotional ” in his 
constitution, and surely you do not greatly help him, but rather complete his 
confusion, because he remembers that all human “ emotions ” are under the 
same universal law, and they cannot be stirred even by “ volition ; ” for 
volition cannot, by any but a “ savage,” be supposed to “ mix in the economy 
of nature.” And is he, a good materialist, to turn “ savage ” in order to keep 
his religion ? Or, can he, indeed, who is fixed, “ turn ” anything ? 
The truth is, whether they perceive it or not, Professor Tyndall, and the 
deriders of prayer on his grounds, deny a moral world altogether ; but they 
do not like to admit it even to themselves. In words we find the Professor 
even contradicting himself thus : — 
“ Besides the phenomena which address the senses, which our mind can 
penetrate, there are laws and principles, and processes which do not address 
the senses at all ; but which must be, and can be, spiritually discerned.” (See 
p.p. 74 and 121.) 
Could a treatise on the “ Power of Prayer” begin with better words? 
What then becomes of that totality of “ the energy ” of the universe which 
was described as so entirely materialistic ? Professor Tyndall is challenged 
to answer this. The verbal contradiction seems complete — the inconsistency 
simply irrational ; but the writer even here does not “ speak out.” We 
complain of all the essayists of this class, that they say and unsay ; and (like 
the poet’s account of fear) they 
“ Back recoil, they know not why, 
E’en at the sound themselves had made.” 
Is it too much to ask for clear heads and honest hearts in those who venture 
before us on subjects like these ? A perception of the meaning of that which 
they oppose is the least we can require of them. Before they assail it let 
them state to themselves, at all events, what our “ hypothesis of a moral 
world ” implies — even a vast society of moral agents, individual springs of 
action, under the moral rule of one Supreme moral Being, the ultimate ad- 
ministrator of all righteousness. (See the “ Analysis of Human Responsi- 
bility ”) ; for until they have mastered this thought, they are not capable of 
