17 
himself with forces given in position in space, with the 
requisite numerical multiples, and he investigates simply 
the relations and mutual actions of pure force-points , such as 
centres of gravity and the like : then he contracts and pre- 
dicts the facts of the universe. 
The Materialist gains nothing by the evidence of the 
mathematician. But he returns to the charge, thus you have 
been talking nonsense about that table, in pretending that 
the matter can be removed while all the forces remain ; for 
matter exists in ultimate atoms, each constituted by an 
indefinite force of cohesion of its parts. Wherefore, if the 
atoms are supposed to be removed, their internal forces are 
removed from the locus along with them. 
So here are the dear little atoms — their fairy troops are 
brought into the field. There is some poetry in the super- 
stitions of the credulous Materialist ; but poetry is not quite 
science. I deny the existence of atoms, and demand proof 
of it. Experimental proof will be difficult in the case of 
such small commodities ; can we expect it from analysis ? 
Will there ever be a proof of an indivisible absolute minimum 
of matter? Do you expect a set of formulae to force up, 
demonstrating the impossibility of the existence in the 
universe of a bit of matter of less than a certain definite 
weight and diameter? That may do for the Materialists, 
but not for the mathematicians. 
If I must believe in matter, I must also believe, not that 
it is infinitely divisible — for that is absurd ; but that it is, 
like the space which it occupies at this moment infinitely 
divided ; so that every mathematical point, or mere volume 
of space, is occupied in a material locus by a mathematical 
point, or zero mass, of matter. The difficulty of affirming an 
