132 
If space “ were full of the perfect fluid/’ and if there were 
“ vortex-rings/’ and if they once got intp “ the perfect fluid, 
some of the phenomena of matter, it is said, might be pro- 
duced ; (and if some, why not all?) — Can we say that all these 
closely-arranged hypotheses are true and solid science ? 
The theory of' the ‘‘Conservation of Energy” is, we 
see, an “ approximation to the facts.” For there is also, a 
“ Dissipation of Energy.” A place then must be found for 
the “ dissipated energy ” ; something of the kind is needed 
give it a name, call it “ luminiferous ether.” Possibly then a 
luminiferous ether receives the lost energy of the molecules ? 
But does the luminiferous ether, being material, lose its 
own energy by friction ? Where then does its so lost energy 
go? Perhaps at length to another ether, and then another, 
and finally to an “Unseen Universe ” ? — Shall we add, “ There- 
fore it is so ” ? 
Surely reasonable people will think that conclusions, scien- 
tific or theological, from these disjunctive syllogisms, 
quate tbr^the or, perhaps, sorites, should be modestly suggested at 
conclusion. a ][ even ts. 
In the Theological inferences of our authors we have found a 
hopeless confusion of the Phenomenal and the Absolute, such 
as leads to a doctrine of the “ Eternally-conditioned Divine Son- 
ship,” — a theory of Philo and of the Gnostics, which led^ Arius 
afterwards, not unnaturally, to assert that the Son was a Created 
Being. But this is a small part of the misconception of our 
Religion displayed by our authors; and this, I shall be reminded, 
is not the place to examine religious theories — theories I say, for 
they have many. Let us notice but one more; their view of 
Miracles and Power. 
66. Our authors’ half-avowed primary conception of a 
Miracle (as “an exception,” p. 190), really seems to be that 
it is, on purely physical principles, a breach of Continuity. 
The modern view generally, indeed, is this, that a Miracle 
is something unaccountable on the ground of natural law ; 
and that it takes place in consequence of a super-natural 
or extra-natural interference from the Unseen. In this way 
Paley uses it, when he takes a miracle as a proof of a Revela- 
tion. It is something from which we may infer the existence of 
a Higher Power at work in the invisible. Reason, he thinks, 
must be distrusted if it rejects “Revelation” as unreason- 
able ; because reason infers a cause for a given miracle, said to 
be wrought as a proof of the Revelation. Such an argument 
has in reality little coherence ; for it appeals to our inferential 
Theory of faculty, after it has refused and confounded it. It 
miracles. ns ] is U3 to transfer our Rationality to a second 
