82 
REPLY TO THE FOREGOING BY THE AUTHOR OF THE 
PAPER. 
I have specially to thank Professor Challis for his kind observations. 
Dr. Irons’s remarks, like everything that he writes, are of great value, and 
well worth the consideration of Professors Huxley and Tyndall, and of all 
who hold their views. 
In reference to myself, there seem to he only two points on which any 
observation is called for. 
1. When I said that it is asserted in various quarters that “ the scientific, 
and even the clerical world is fast drifting into unbelief,” I had chiefly in my 
mind the following sentence which I had copied down from a lecture 
delivered at Birmingham some three years ago (if I am right as to the time) 
by Dr. Tyndall: — “ The world, — even the clerical world, — has for the most 
part settled down in the belief that Mr. Darwin’s book simply reflects the 
truth of nature.” This, I admit, is not necessarily identical with the 
sentence in my paper, for there are some (myself among the number) who 
do not see that Mr. Darwin’s views, however unlikely to be ultimately 
established, are utterly irreconcilable with Christianity. But there seems 
to be much reason for thinking that, at all events, Dr. Tyndall himself, in 
uttering that sentence, identified Darwinism with unbelief. It is gratifying, 
however, to learn from Dr. Irons that now, at any rate, “ the ingenious fear- 
lessness of educated Christians (specially shown in this Institute) has really 
silenced the offensive pretensions to 1 enlightenment ’ ” to which I alluded. 
2. I quite believe, with Dr. Irons, that, in regard to spontaneity of will, 
11 man, who is 4 made in the image of God,’ has common cause herein with 
the Divine Father,” nor had I any idea of implying (however the words to 
which he takes exception may be open to such an interpretation) that there is 
any doubt as to man’s spontaneity. I merely meant to say that as the subject 
under consideration was the will of God, and not that of man, and as we 
believe God to be a pure spirit, Dr. Tyndall’s arguments against man’s 
spontaneity, drawn as they are entirely from material considerations, leave 
the question of the Divine spontaneity untouched. In section 5 of my 
paper, referring to Dr. Tyndall’s assertion that man is a mere machine, these 
words occur, viz. — “ This view has been satisfactorily disproved by many, and 
among them, by the President of Yale College,” &c. — showing that although 
I may have used an inconsiderate expression, I do not ignore human 
spontaneity. 
I sincerely thank Dr. Irons for his remarks, and especially for the oppor- 
tunity he has given me for explaining myself on this important point. 
