241 
deductions as were drawn by Professor Clifford. That Professor Stokes, the 
successor of Sir Isaac Newton in his mathematical chair, should hold the 
views he has expounded, and that he should hold them not merely con- 
currently with his science, but that he should put the two side by side, 
affords to us one of the best means we have of refuting such reckless state- 
ments as those upon which I took occasion to comment. The paper read to us 
by Professor Stokes is a very just rebuke to the tendency of the present 
day to imagine that because we are subject to certain scientific laws we are 
practically identical with mere material existence. That we are most 
intimately connected with material existence is a truth laid down in the 
first chapter of the Bible, in which it is stated that man was made on the 
same day as the beasts. Surely that is a very remarkable statement. One . 
would have thought that if, as we are told, man was made in the divine image 
of God, he would naturally have been put by himself, say on the sixth day, 
while the beasts, — the mammalia and reptiles, — would have been made on the 
fifth day. But for some reason, we find that man and the beasts were both 
made on one day, and it appears to me that here we have a statement which 
goes beyond anything science can lay down as to the fact of our being subject 
to scientific laws. There we have in the first chapter of Genesis two great 
facts placed side by side, namely, man’s connection with nature as a 'natural 
being, and at the same time man being almost joined, as it were, to God by 
the fact of his being made in God’s own image. There are some points in 
Professor Stokes’s paper that I should like to notice. ^The comparison used by 
him as to man’s body resembling a locomotive, and his controlling mind or 
will resembling the engine-driver, is beautiful and striking, but perhaps even 
a better comparison in a kindred sphere may be suggested. Suppose we 
were to take the case of the pointsman on a railway. The points- 
man moves a lever, and the result is, either that the passing train goes 
on safely, or that there is a frightful collision. There is, of course, a 
certain amount of muscular energy exercised in moving the lever, but that is 
not transferred to the result, — by which I mean that the movement of the 
lever does not accelerate or diminish the progress of the train ; it simply 
changes the direction in which the train is proceeding. Is there not here 
something very much like the action of the human will ? All our energy 
comes from the outside, if you like, but there is still the controlling will 
which is represented by the pointsman. Speaking more generally, it 
is not well for us to be always taking the orthodox side, but where we 
see a difficulty we should lay it fully and fairly before ourselves, because we 
may be sure that if it is not thus laid before us here, it will be elsewhere, and 
it cannot be better examined than in this place. It is with this view that 
I venture to criticise some statements of Professor Stokes. In the matter of 
the dissipation of energy, we, of course, see in the vessel spoken of in the 
paper no possibility of work being done inside except by means of the 
shutters supposed to be moved by the demons ; but supposing the walls of 
the vessel were removed, work might be done (by all the lukewarm heat 
