103 
brought out in the second page. The paper eulogises both Tyndall and 
Huxley, one as physicist and the other as a physiologist. It cannot be too 
highly commended in this respect. They are quite at home in their proper 
departments. Prof. Tyndall is clear in physics, but in no other thing which 
he throws out. Here is what the paper says : They have “ the honour of 
having demonstrated, each in his own 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 the severest topics of 
science.” One has embraced physics and the other physiology, and this is 
the reason why they go so far astray upon these points. Had they studied 
in Oxford or Cambridge, or in any other of our universities, they would 
have had both more modesty with regard to those who labour in other 
departments of literature, and would not have made so many mistakes 
in their own. Had they studied logic under Whately, or in some other 
school where they would have been trained in a similar way, they would 
have made . better definitions, they would have used more precise 
language, and they would have reasoned from true premises, and would 
have drawn full and true conclusions. But their definitions are all wrong. 
We have been told (page 90) that we should protest. I think we may join 
in the protest at page 82, where a definition is given of the human body as a 
machine. A definition should include the whole. A machine is not an 
organism. An organism has life, and grows. The definition, therefore, is 
wrong, and the premises are wrong. How, then, can they bring forth truth 
from such premises and such definitions ? I think it is the early training 
of these men that has been defective. They have gone into matters they 
have never studied. They have literature and theology and wrapped them 
round their science, thinking that all must be science, all must be physics, 
all must be physiology. 
Mr. E. R. Gayer. — There is just one sentence in this very able paper to 
which I must take objection. It is on the top of page 93 : “ If this agent 
or force within is nothing more than an idealized abstraction, this abstraction 
discoursed most eloquently from the chair of the Midland Institute on the 
1st of October.” I think the writer has made a mistake in introducing 
this sentence. This, it 'appears to me, is no answer to Prof. Tyndall’s 
position. It is precisely the same, to go back to Dr. Johnson, as the answer 
Dr. Johnson thought he had given to Berkeley, when he told him if he only 
went and knocked his head against the wall he would soon perceive whether 
it was a solid or not. That was perfectly absurd, and showed that Dr. 
J ohnson did not understand the Berkeleian theory. This, I say, is equally 
absurd. The true answer would be, “ If you say that mind and soul are mere 
abstractions, how can you show that these batteries and forces, and different 
things of the realistic properties of which you speak, are not abstractions 
also ” ? * 
* Mr. Gayer, in his speech, added “ The only other objection that occurs 
to me has reference to two words on page 87, where Prof. Porter says his body 
