429 
liow loose the argument is. Either Professor Tyndall does not maintain what 
Mr. English says he does, or Mr. English himself believes what he seems to 
argue against. My own opinion is, that Mr. English does believe that the 
body and soul may be separated without the destruction of the soul, and I 
am not sure that Professor Tyndall does hold that view ! — Then Mr. English 
says : — “ What is ethical cannot be separated from what is physical and theo- 
logical, very frequently.” Well, “ very frequently” we do know that that may 
be so, but until you come to those words, he seems to be putting an invari- 
able and absolute proposition before us. Then he says : — “ Mind is con- 
nected with matter, and both have to do with morals.” But mind is 
not connected with matter abstractedly, and there is no necessary con- 
nection between them always. And “ both have to do with morals.” Now 
that I deny. I deny that matter has to do with morals, and such an asser- 
tion seems to me almost as if we were drifting into Manichseism. All 
that is moral or imm oral is connected with mind alone and not with the 
mere animal body. It is not that which goeth into a man that defileth 
him, but that which cometh out of him. We have high authority for that. 
It is the defilement in the mind that constitutes immorality. Then there is 
another point in the paper which I must notice, because we must bear in 
mind that this paper is thrown out as a challenge to the men of science. I 
heard • Professor Tyndall make use of similar language to that now ani- 
madverted upon, greatly to my delight, in Sion College, on the occasion of 
Professor Huxley reading his paper there ; and I considered it an acknow- 
ledgment that “ there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed 
of” in natural-science-philosophy. But what will Professor Tyndall and his 
friends think when they come to read this ? Mr. English refers to the Posi- 
tivist notion “ that every branch of knowledge leads the inquirer through 
three stages ; that the mind, on seeing phenomena, first desires to know the 
causes at work producing such phenomena ; then, leaving causes, it seeks 
after abstract forces ; and lastly, confines itself to laws, — ‘ the God of this 
world, which blinds the minds of them that believe not.’” Now I protest 
against that. I am sorry to have texts introduced at all into our papers ; but 
how the natural laws, the laws of God’s nature, should be connected with 
“ the God of this world which blinds the minds of them that believe not ” I 
cannot understand. “ The God of this world ” alluded to by the Apostle is 
the spirit of evil ; and the spirit of evil has nothing to do with those natural 
laws of God’s ordaining. I am surprised that that passage should have 
escaped Mr. English’s pen. And now let me pass on to another part of the 
paper, where there is a still more extraordinary error, in allusion to St. Paul’s 
admonition to the Pliilippians : — “ Whatsover things are true, whatsoever 
things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, 
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report ; if there be 
any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Mr. English, 
after quoting that text, goes on to say : — “ Which St. Paul bade the Philip- 
pians ‘think on,’ if there be any such thing as virtue.” But the text means 
nothing of the kind. St. Paul, after enumerating a great many things, simply 
2 G 2 
