223 
by which the consequences of the primordial conditions have been 
traced to their minutest particulars, but is itself in no respect 
primary. In an article contained in the Fortnightly Review for 
November, 1875, Dr. Tyndall expresses great admiration of the 
beauty of the form of the snow-flake , which he seems disposed to 
attribute to some undefined virtue in atoms, but dares not say that 
there is “ Mind/’ The mathematical physicist, who has ground for 
expecting that he may be able to account for this form by reasoning 
from the properties of the ether and atoms, has not the less reason 
on that account to admire its beauty ; and besides, as knowing 
that his mathematical symbols are only means to help him to 
understand how the effect is produced, he is compelled to believe 
that the modus operandi was ordered by mind, which from the fiist 
perceived the consequences. It is remarkable that in Gen. i., 
where after each creation it is said that <£ God saw^ that it was 
good,” the word for “good” in the Septuagint is kuXov, which, as 
applied to material substances, can only mean “ beautiful. 
The authors of The Unseen Universe are certainly not charge- 
able with opposition to Divine Revelation. But by not accepting 
the Physical Philosophy which ascribes our perception of ultimate 
qualities to sensation and experience, they reject the aid of per- 
sonal consciousness, which in Scripture is recognized as a source of 
knowledge. (“ That which may be known of God is manifest in 
them.”— See Rom. i. 19, 20.) This, I think, accounts for the 
inconsecutiveness of the arguments by which they attempt to con- 
nect physical science with the truths of Revelation. (See Appen- 
dix II. of the work cited at the end of art. 3*2.) 
I am well aware that arguments have been adduced in this 
Essay that are insufficiently developed to be generally intelligible, 
and others that might be called in question. I think, however, 
that I may have done something both for science and for religion 
if I have succeeded in demonstrating that physical science consists 
of two distinct parts, one relating to causes, and the other to laws, 
and in indicating their respective relations to Scriptural truth. 
The Chairman. — I am sure you will unite with me in returning cordial 
thanks to Professor Challis for his very able paper ; it will be open to those 
present to offer remarks thereon after two communications have been read. 
The Honorary Secretary then read the following letters : — 
“ The Close, Lichfield, 
“ 28 th April, 1876. 
“Dear Sir,— I have to thank you for your courtesy in sending me the 
‘proof* of Professor Challis’s paper, which is to be read at the Victoria 
Institute on the 1st prox. I see by his first paragraph, and his subsequent 
handling of his subject, that he uses the word ‘ metaphysics in its etymo- 
