153 
what I said just now, that this course of argument is unsatisfactory in itself. 
I ventured to say that we were led to these conclusions ; on the one hand 
material pantheism, and on the other mechanical immortality. In sec. 30 
of the paper, I think the argument justifies this statement, but do not wish 
to be unjust. It is there stated — “We must think the great whole to be 
infinite in energy, and that it will last from eternity to eternity.” Now 
this excludes the Creator from eternity to eternity. It gathers up in 
itself a self-moving energy which began ah initio, and continues by an 
unvarying law from eternity to eternity. What is this but material 
pantheism ? But the writers go on to say that they believe in God ; but God 
the Father is a remote sort of being with whom we have no kind of fellow- 
ship ; from Him there have been derived two developing agencies — the 
Second Person in the Blessed Trinity and the Holy Ghost. And here I 
may say that I wish to speak with all reverence on so grave a subject, and 
that, in what I am stating, I am only trying to repeat the conclusions to 
which this book leads us. You have first the Eternal Father, unconditioned 
and unapproachable in act, or conception by any of His creatures : next, God 
the Son, who is “ a developing agency,” having proceeded from the Father. 
Dr. Irons. — Such a Being is represented in the following paragraph in the 
book : — 
“What means this mysterious, infinitely energetic, intelligent, developing 
agency residing in the universe and therefore in some sense conditioned ? 
In endeavouring to reply to this question we cannot do better than consult 
the Christian records.” 
Mr. Oxenham. — An intelligent developing agency residing in the 
universe ? 
Dr. Irons. — They explain: — It is, they believe, a prevalent idea among 
theologians that the passages which they have been quoting from Scripture 
“ indicate, in the first place, the existence of an unapproachable Creator, the 
unconditioned One who is spoken of as God the Father, and that they also 
indicate the existence of another being of the same substance as the Father, 
but different in person, and who has agreed to develop the will of the 
Father, and thus in some mysterious way to submit to conditions and to 
enter into the universe. The relation of this Being to the Father is expressed 
in Hebrews, in the words of the Psalmist, ‘ Then, said I, Lo, I come ; in the 
volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, 0 my God ; 
yea, thy law is within my heart.’ In fine, such a Being would represent 
that conditioned yet infinitely powerful developing agent to which the 
universe objectively considered would appear to lead up.” — That passage, I 
think, is a fair justification of the passage in my paper. 
Mr. Oxenham. — There is a considerable difference whether you say an 
“ agent ” or an “ agency ” ; but it is quite clear, from my recollection of the 
book and of the passage you have read, that the distinction between “ an 
agency,” which is a mere abstract force, and “ an agent,” who is an individual 
