97 
The argument which we have analyzed consists of four 
divisions. Of these divisions the first recapitulates the history 
and evidence of the conservation and correlation of force in the 
domain of physics. In this argument Prof. Tyndall is at home. 
His statements are clear, his examples are pertinent, and the 
experiments are manifold. We will admit that the argument 
is decisive, without interposing a single one of the exceptions 
which we should reserve, were the case to be tried before 
another tribunal. The second division is that in which he 
argues that the animal body is a machine, which is controlled 
by those forces and only those forces, and obeys those laws 
and only those laws, which are found in the inorganic sphere. 
This argument seems to us obviously defective, in that it omits 
many of the phenomena which are most characteristic of the 
animal body, and transfers analogies from one physiological 
function to another, with an intellectual haste and audacity 
which are# utterly foreign to the methods of physical science, 
or indeed of any science, whether pure or applied. The third 
division declares that all those phenomena commonly called 
psychical should be treated by the scientific man as utterly 
unknown — as incapable themselves of being explained by any 
other than material forces and laws, and of being stated in 
any other than figures of poetic ideality. This position he 
does not argue. He simply begs the conclusion, and not only 
this, but he dishonours science itself by this very assumption, 
because he dishonours the agent which is the creator of science, 
and by its own sovereignty is the lawgiver of science, impos- 
ing upon its own work the methods of procedure, and declaring 
the manifold services, Prof. Tyndall himself being witness, 
which theory, inquiry, imagination, and experiment have 
contributed towards its triumphs. Moreover he asserts that 
the soul though potent and sovereign in these creations, is 
nothing but an idealized abstraction ; although when he forgets 
his theory, he himself gives fervent and eloquent testimony to 
the spiritual light and comfort and peace of his great teacher 
Faraday, and the simple and sturdy honour of “ Mr. Charles 
Darwin, the Abraham of scientific men — a searcher as obedient 
to the command of truth as was the patriarch to the command 
of God.” The fourth division consists of the rambling and 
somewhat incoherent argument, which we have endeavoured 
to condense, upon the higher themes of man’s responsibility 
to himself, his fellow men, and to God. In all this part of the 
discourse there is not the slightest suggestion of the methods 
of induction or experiment, such as are pursued in physical 
science. There is not a single example of those analogies 
Avhich open to the sagacious interpretations of scientific genius 
