THE MECHANICAL CONCEPTION OF NATURE. 243 



The Rev. C. Lloyd Engstrom, M.A., writes : — 



In my judgment the paper is particularly valuable, because in a 

 very short space it makes very plain the tendency to view all 

 phenomena from the '' mechanical " point of view. The writer is 

 evidently in the stream of much that is commonly regarded as 

 anti- Christian in tendency. He therefore speaks with knowledge 

 of both sides, and he helps us quite ns much by showing us the 

 trend of much scientific thought as by pointing out how we may 

 yet believe in a spiritual world. 



Mr. J. W. Slater, F.C.S., writes :— 



Page 224. The so-called iatro-niathemalicians, such as Borelli 

 and Sanctorius are, as it seems to me, too favourably spoken 

 of. Their speculations directed research into wrong channels, and 

 should serve as a warning. We all know of Professor Fleeming 

 Jenkin's mathematical argument against organic evolution based 

 upon an assumption which would never have occurred to him had 

 he been a biologrist. 



THE AUTHOR'S REPLY. 



Princeton College, U.S.A. 



October 21, 1895. 



As the design of my paper on The Mechanical Conception of 

 Natiire was simply to submit to a competent jury my views on 

 an important subject, 1 am gratified by the attention accorded, and 

 now only ask an opportunity to dispel any misapprehensions as 

 to the meaning and spirit of the pi'oduction. 



I have to thank Sir G. G. Stokes for his kind remarks as 

 President. 



Mr. Slater's citation of the chemical knowledge of the ancient 

 Egyptians falls in nicely with my observation (p. 222) about 



