55 
compound we do not destroy the materials. This is sufficient 
evidence that man has not destroyed any substantial existence, 
and a very important generalization it is in some respects : but 
there is not one tittle of evidence for the wider proposition of 
.Democritus, either in observation or the laws of thought. 
Another statement is, “ every occurrence has its cause, from 
winch it follows by necessity.” I agree with this, but not in 
the sense of Democritus. I believe there is a necessity, but 
lat it flows from the will of a Creator, whose will is law ; but 
Democritus held that the necessity was inherent. That this 
is not evidentially proved, is shown by the fact that many of his 
on n school reject this necessity altogether, and use the word 
antecedence instead. Bain says, “ To express causation, we 
need only name one thing, the antecedent, or cause, and 
another thing, the effect.” Huxley writes, “The notion of 
necessity is something illegitimately thrust into the perfectly 
egitimate conception of law.” The invaluable evidence of the 
fundamental laws of thought, and the testimony of conscious- 
ness is ignored by those naturalists who maintain that the only 
bond of union between successive happenings is that of time 
and regularity, and that by these two terms they <rive an 
adequate explanation of causation. 
Indeed this whole atomic hypothesis, while a most valuable 
one for working purposes, and very useful to the chemist, is not 
sufficiently verified to be assumed as a fact, or made the basis 
of a theory of the universe. Professor Cooke, of Harvard 
University, who says he has been called a blind partisan of the 
atomic theory, writes regarding it, “ I wish to declare my 
belief that the atomic theory, beautiful and consistent as it 
appears, is only a temporary expedient for representing the 
facts of chemistry to the mind ; although in the present state 
of science it gives absolutely essential aid both to investigation 
and study ; I have the conviction that it is a temporary 
scaffolding around the imperfect building, which will be 
removed as soon as its usefulness is passed.”* This is con- 
sistent and scientific, but TyndalPs mode of treating the mole- 
cules seems neither one nor other. He first adopts the idea 
that “ the varieties of all things depend upon the varieties of 
their atoms in number, size, and aggregation,” and states 
distinctly that Maxwell’s logic was not legitimate when he took 
the step from the atoms to their Maker, that we must abandon 
all conception of creative acts. Here then is a distinct 
* The Neiv Chemistry, p. 103 . 
