180 JOURNAL OF THE PLYMOUTH INSTITUTION. 
the much-wished-for conclusion. One thing to be done is to eliminate 
from the mind the theological sympathy and antipathy, which are 
too apt to distort the judgment and to lead to passionate conclusions. 
Science and religion must be kept distinct in all processes of scientitic 
research and conclusion. Any reciprocity of interference between 
them would endanger confused enquiry and hybrid results. I have 
heard Professor Tyndall’s failure at Belfast attributed to imperfect 
mathematics. He possesses a vivid scientific imagination, if I may 
use the phrase, unweighted with the ballast of Mathematical judgment. 
At a dash, he will assume a conclusion without the anterior premises, 
and is apt to confound anticipation with achievement. Mathematics, 
as I have said, are far too precise an instrument to allow the least 
opening for such confusion in the scientific mind. I have no 
objection to Molecular Science in itself; nothing can be more 
appropriate for discussion in institutions like the British Asso- 
ciation, or our own Institute; but we can dispense with references 
to Democritus, or Epicurus, or Lucretius, as authoritative on our 
judgment. The Professor fairly warns out of court all interference 
of Christian Divines (they are supposed to be incapable of forming 
an unprejudiced opinion) ; then why does he subpeena the sceptics 
of old Greece and Rome to give evidence in a case where their 
conclusion was a foregone one against the religion of their country- 
men? If he must bring up his Lucretius—an exquisite writer and 
deep thinker—why does he not adduce Cicero and other ancient 
writers, who have been often thought to have confuted the Lucretian 
doctrine? But I forbear. I have thrown out a hint, which some 
of you may improve. It would well employ an evening to discuss 
the old physical doctrines of Greek and Roman philosophers, and 
compare them with the curious recurrence of similar opinions now, 
as defended by our Darwins, and Spencers, and Huxleys, and 
Tyndalls. ‘‘ Nothing new under the sun” has received another 
voucher for its truth; and thus the ends meet again, the fanciful 
conjectures of thinkers, whom we greet (with respect and due 
allowance) on the threshold of philosophy, and the poetic prolepsis 
of our nineteenth century authorities, who (as if they scorned or 
despaired of the direction of contemporary thought) sought for that 
countenance of authority, which all desiderate, in the fellowship of 
the Ancients, whose names have traversed the periods of the history 
of human opinion. But men are apt (curiously enough) to recur 
to antiquity, in other ways and for other purposes than one; let 
