80 
way, that a discipline of classical culture, or of early literary 
studies, is by no means essential to the training of an effective 
popular speaker or lecturer upon tho severest topics of science. 
We say each in his way, for the excellencies of Prof. Tyndall 
and Prof. Huxley are unlike — Prof. Tyndall being strong in 
illustration, ornament, and suggestiveness, while Prof. Huxley 
excels in directness, simplicity, and force. 
The specialty of Prof. Tyndall, as is well known, is that 
department of physics which includes the kindred agents of 
light, heat, and electricity. Prof. Huxley is eminently a phy- 
siologist — both human and comparative. Neither of the two, 
however, confines himself to the specialties named, especially 
in their popular lectures and addresses — both being more than 
usually fond of following out the suggestions of physics and 
physiology in respect to the nature of the soul, the progress 
and destiny of man, and the origin and end of the physical 
universe. In plain English, both these gentlemen are very 
fond of teaching the public metaphysics and theology after 
what they please to call the methods and conclusions of 
physical science. We do not altogether blamo them for this. 
The desire and effort show a generous recognition of other 
phenomena than those which are included within their own 
departments, and the rooted conviction that all truth is one, 
and therefore it is impossible that any science of nature should 
conflict with the other forms of scientific truth, or offend any 
rational conviction. Prof. Tyndall has appropriated to himself 
a somewhat wider field of discussion than Prof. Huxley, having 
discussed very frequently the method of scientific inquiry 
with a sagacious appreciation of the problem, and with com- 
mendable, if not always consistent, sagacity in solving it. 
From the metaphysics of induction, he has very naturally 
proceeded to discuss the nature and essence of the soul, and 
has consequently yielded to the further impulse to inquire what 
science teaches concerning freedom, morality, immortality, 
prayer, and God. All this has been done under the impulse 
of an implicit faith in what he calls science. His confidence 
concerning his mastery of what ho calls the known and the 
analogies which it suggests in respect to tho unknown — his 
predictions of what is the inevitable tendency of modern 
thinking in respect to every one of the topics named, and the 
eager haste with which he seeks to place himself among the 
foremost of its heralds — are contagiously exhilarating even to 
tho looker-on who neither accepts his data nor his inferences. 
How much more must tho lecturer himself enjoy the glowing 
excitement with which ho sweeps along his triumphant course 
and tho responsive enthusiasm of his confiding and admiring 
