88 GEOEGE JOHN EOMANES 1878- 



ably, and here and there very eloquently written but 

 from not understanding metaphysical terms I could 

 not always follow you. For the sake of outsiders, if 

 there is another edition, could you make it clear what 

 is the difference between treating a subject under 

 a ' scientific,' ' logical,' ' symbolical,' and ' formal ' 

 point of views or manner ? With regard to your 

 great leading idea, I should like sometimes to hear 

 from you verbally (for to answer would be too long 

 for letters) what you would say if a theologian 

 addressed you as follows : 



' I grant you the attraction of gravity, persistence 

 of force (or conservation of energy), and one kind of 

 matter, though the latter is an immense admission ; 

 but I maintain that God must have given such 

 attributes to this force, independently of its persist- 

 ence, that under certain conditions it develops or 

 changes into light, heat, electricity, galvanism, per- 

 haps even life. 



' You cannot prove that force (which physicists 

 define as that which causes motion) would inevitably 

 thus change its character under the above conditions. 

 Again I maintain that matter, though it may in the 

 future be eternal, was created by God with the most 

 marvellous affinities, leading to complex definite 

 compounds and with polarities leading to beautiful 

 crystals, &c. &c. You cannot prove that matter would 

 necessarily possess these attributes. Therefore you 

 have no right to say that you have " demonstrated " 

 that all natural laws necessarily follow from gravity, 

 the persistence of force, and existence of matter. If 

 you say that nebulous matter existed aboriginally 

 and from eternity with all its present complex powers 



