connected, arbitrary interventions of God.” God could do nothing that was 
arbitrary, for all that He did was in the exercise of the highest wisdom. He 
did not act intermittently, but with the omniscience of One who saw from 
eternity to eternity. One of the most valuable portions of the paper was 
that one in which Professor Nicholson pointed out that — 
“ The great problem of the future is to translate the laws of material 
mechanics into those of spiritual mechanics — to show, in other words, that 
the laws of Matter and the laws of Spirit are not laws of a different order 
but of a different degree .” 
In fact, there was the material world, and there was another, a higher and 
an inner world, which was governed by another set of laws. There were 
two great regions of existence, the natural and the spiritual, and they cor- 
responded, the one being a symbol of the other. There was not a single 
idea of the super-sensual kind which was capable of being expressed at all, 
except by some idea in the things of nature. All things in the natural 
world corresponded to all things in the spiritual world, and the great pro- 
blem was to translate the material world and its phenomena into the terms 
of the spiritual world in reference to spiritual things. 
The Rev. T. C. Beasley said that one of the most interesting points in 
the paper was the relative value of learning from books and from actual 
sight. In his experience he had often felt that it would have been a great 
help, could he have seen or heard illustrations of the truths of science. That, 
however, was not always possible, and even if it were, it would not always 
be the greatest help. The greatest help would be to work the two systems 
together in combination. For instance, a clear conception of a steam-engine 
could only be obtained from description, accompanied by diagrams and a. 
working model ; and the possession of a sextant would be of little avail, with 
out some acquaintance with Trigonometry, joined with a viva voce explana- 
tion and practical illustrations of the method of using the instrument. 
A Member thought that one could learn equations, for instance, with 
nothing but a paper and pencil, but not the construction of machinery ; the 
one was Pure, the other was Experimental or Practical Science. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
Professor Nicholson’s Reply.— Professor Nicholson writes to express 
his thanks for the opportunity of adding any remarks to the discussion : he 
adds, “ On reading it over, however, I do not find anything to say that 
would be of any importance excepting that the remarks made by the ( Ihair- 
man, as to the value of the purely theoretical study of Mathematics (apart 
from observation) do not touch the point at which I was aiming in my 
paper. Mathematics stands in a perfectly unique position in this respect, 
and, in so far as it does so, it is hardly a true Science. 1 was alluding to the 
Natural and Physical Sciences, which certainly cannot be properly taught 
or learnt except upon a previously-acquired basis of actual observation of 
phenomena.” 
