349 
not, if “ invariable law” so works of itself as to be untouched by 
any distinct “governing” power, even at first. If a power or 
force can only act in a previously fixed way, (and yet there is 
nothing “ previous”), in what sense, we repeat, can it be said to 
“govern 11 ? If science really obliged us to think thus, science 
would not, (as Mr. Mill does), speak of a “governing Power” at 
all. But our most advanced men, whether in thought or science, 
quite refuse to decide in this peremptory way, that anterior 
governing Power is inconsistent with the known results of science ; 
as we shall see. 
46. Professor Tyndall, in his latest utterance, that in the Free 
Trades’ Hall at Manchester, ( See Note C), informs us that the 
question of the present day is, “ how far does this Professor 
wondrous display of molecular force extend ? ” And Tyndaii and 
he directly declines to forestall the answer of science ; ^se^mMiii’s 
and rather retorts on those who charge him with d °£ ma - 
scepticism, that probably they are really greater “ sceptics ” than 
himself. Mr. Morley, in his discussion on Voltaire, speaks, of 
course, with more openness than Professor Tyndall, and ex- 
presses himself with that clearness which distinguishes him. — 
“ There is an unknown element, ” he says, “ at the bottom of the 
varieties of creation, whether we agree to call that element a 
Volition of a Superior Being, or an undiscovered set of facts in 
embryology.” 
So the testimony of philosophy, as well as science, as thus offered, 
is alike against Mr. Mill. It is suggested by those, like Professors 
Tyndall and Huxley, and Mr. Morley, men whom we take to be 
looking honestly at facts, that as far as we yet know, “ invariable 
law ” does not account for everything. A “ Governing ” volition 
of a Superior Being may, at one point at least, be quite con- 
sistent “ with science ” ; and is, with scientific men, a suggestion 
warranted at present by the state of our knowledge. 
Competent physicists recognize of course the distinction 
between vital and other force. Abiogenesis is as yet a dream ; 
life not being known to arise without previous life. We need 
not dwell further here on Mr. Mill’s “ science.” 
47. We may pass then, with some reason, to second in- 
Mr. Mill’s second inquiry, (though its hypothesis What is the 
now is like the Irish second plea of “justification,” governing 
— after the first plea of “ not guilty ”). Nature? 
“ Supposing a Superior Being’s Volition to be consistent with 
our scientific results, can this existence be scientifically tested ? ” 
Of what nature is the “ evidence ” for it P — He does not seem 
to know that it is, as previous Force, a postulate of Science itself. 
But under the impression that the a priori is not only un- 
scientific, but condemned by science, he has no need of axioms or 
VOL. ix. 2 B 
