151 
to be about to arrive. Here he has failed. He shrinks from post-Christian 
philosophy, for that, he says, must necessarily owe something to Christianity; 
he quotes Epicurus and Descartes with approval, but is obliged to explain 
away the fact that both believed in a Creator. And he does not tell us, as 
he ought to do, how matter first began, nor what was the origin of life. In 
short, he seems to put it thus : “ Much evidence has been brought out, but 
it is not complete, and therefore we request you to 1 accept our conclusions 
without evidence ; and if you will not do so, you must be content to be 
included among those who stagnate in the stillness of a swamp.” 
Mr. T. W. Masterman. — With regard to Mr. Howard’s remarks on the 
testimony of History in regard to deity, I think it will always be found 
that, however far we may go back, both in the monumental and written 
history of any country, we shall always find that there has been a belief in a 
deity and a sacrifice to him. 
Dr. E. Haughton. — May I venture to say that I think it would have 
been better had Mr. Howard’s otherwise admirable paper contained more 
quotations from Professor Tyndall’s address. 
Mr. D. Howard. — Lord Bacon’s Novum Organon may be very profitably 
studied in connection with much more modern controversies. It is a great 
pity that Professor Tyndall has not given a true representation of the great 
thinkers that preceded him, instead of belabouring a straw bishop. It may 
fairly be said that the Greeks had no science in our sense, for they had not 
that accurate putting together of facts by induction which we call science, 
but as metaphysicians they were certainly far superior to us. I must confess 
I do not entirely share the doubt expressed as to the meaning of Tyndall’s 
system ; we have arrived at an important point in modern science, we have 
learnt very much about the brain, but are we one bit nearer knowing the 
telegraph operator in the brain ; and the whole point is simply this. — our 
material studies, however far they are carried, lead up to something entirely 
apart from and beyond matter, which, call it what you will, we must face. 
The simplest name as well as the truest is “the Will of God,” and this 
answer to the question, “ What is it ?” is far more truly scientific than that 
of the pantheist which ascribes it to a universal intellect or some other such 
term, which is but a confession of ignorance. Tyndall is no more able to 
solve the question, “ What underlies Phenomena 1 ” than were the Greek 
philosophers two thousand years ago. 
Captain F. Petrie. — I would venture to call attention to some errors 
contained in the historical sketch given by Professor Tyndall in his Belfast 
address, my attention having been drawn to them when reading some 
remarks recently made by Dr. McCosh, and I cannot do better than 
give his words : — “ Professor Tyndall talks of Empedocles ‘ noticing the 
gap in the doctrines of Democritus,’ whereas, every tyro in philosophy 
knows that Empedocles came before Democritus. Speaking of the cen- 
turies lying between Democritus and Lucretius, lie makes Pythagoras then 
perform ‘his experiments on the harmonic intervals,’ as if Pythagoras 
