390 
in this age. Dr. Tyndall should have known, when he finished 
up one of his scientific lectures with a few lines from Carlyle 
about 
u thy small nine and thirty Articles,” 
that no theory of the “ Universe " was to be found in them 
at all, and that he was quoting a dream, when a fact would 
have been more congruous both to his profession and his 
subject. 
“ Qui, ne tuberibus propriis offendat amicum 
Postulat, ignoscat verrucis films.” 
I regret to see Dr. Tyndall's example copied by Professor 
Huxley, and still more recently by Dr. Hooker, because neither 
science nor philosophy can ever receive benefit by dragging 
the “ clergy," or “ religion," or both, into essays of a pro- 
fessedly scientific character. If any of the “ clergy " are 
ec noble savages " as regards their knowledge of what consti- 
tutes Dr. Tyndall's specialty, they may have reason to think 
that learning in another direction, if not good manners, is 
capable of extension outside their own profession. Some time 
since learning was confined almost exclusively to the cloister. 
Roger Bacon, in the thirteenth century, was celebrated for 
his knowledge of physics, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, 
and medicine, and the people looked upon him as a magician. 
But we have reason to be thankful that learning is now no 
longer a monopoly, nor peculiar to any class, though it is 
true that a committee, not of the “ clergy," but of the House 
of Commons, voted George Stephenson a madman, not very 
long ago, for devising a scheme of locomotion. (I am amongst 
those who believe that Stephenson has got much of the credit 
due to Mr. W. James : see proof of this in the Mechanics ' 
Magazine for Oct. 21, 1848.) But let us all remember that 
knowledge in one department can never entitle any man to 
say proud things about another. No lecture on science can 
ever end well with a sneer at theology. At least I may well 
be pardoned for thinking that a wider acquaintance with the 
two branches of knowledge would lead to a dignified treat- 
ment of both. 
When I undertook to write a paper for this Society on a 
former occasion, I was so fully convinced that the study of 
mind was being overlooked by some engaged with the pro- 
perties of matter, that I made it a chief point to bring into 
prominence some of the phenomena of the soul (I use mind 
in a generic, and soul in a specific or individual sense), as 
thought, feeling, will, &c. And I rejoice to see that Dr, 
