236 
I 
in the Septuagiut the form of expression in the two cases is absolutely the 
same. I cannot agree with the supposition that atoms and ether are only 
imaginative. I think they are as real as anything else that is real. I do not 
know what is real if they are not, because they compose all that is real. The 
Honorary Secretary of the Institute fCapt. Petrie) kindly sent me a letter 
he had received from Dr. Angus, on which I think it right to make some 
remarks in reply, because its contents bear on other criticisms which have 
been made during this discussion. It is specially with reference to the ex- 
pression, Trvtvfia Of oS, that I have to speak. Dr. Angus has misunderstood 
me where I say that, on account of the article being absent, the phrase cannot 
be translated, “ the Spirit of God.” 1 did not say so in any general sense. 
What I said was only with reference to that particular passage. In a hundred 
places irveyfia Ocov might mean “the Spirit of God,” without the article ; 
but in each such case there is something in the context which will tell 
you that the Spirit ot God is signified, and that every other sense is excluded ; 
whereas, in this passage of Genesis, there is a sense which is not excluded — 
namely , that the air, a material substance, was borne upon the water. Per- 
haps I may be allowed to give a reason, which is strong in my mind, why we 
have in the Scriptures the expression irvtvu'i Qcov , signifying the air we 
breathe, although it usually signifies the Spirit of God. In the Scriptures, 
wherever there is an abstract sense or meaning there is also the concrete, 
and the two are put so close together that you cannot separate the one from 
the other ; and this is done on purpose to show their necessary connection. 
St. Paul, lor instance, says : “ They are not all Israel that are of Israel.” 
“ Israel ” is here, in one case Israel after the flesh, and in the other it is 
spiritual Israel, both senses being expressed by the very same word. That 
same principle extends through the Scriptures from beginning to end. 
Perhaps, in conclusion, I may just advert to another part of the essay in 
which I speak of angelic agency. Very likely there maybe a difference of 
opinion on that point, and I want to say that I do not claim originality in 
regard to what I have said about it. I was led to speak of it by reading 
the recently-published work, The Unseen Universe. The authors of that 
book do not assent to Newton’s idea of referring our understanding of all 
things to sensation and experience, and therefore they cannot assent to the 
notion that pressure is the only form of force that we can understand. Thus 
they have to find out some means of accounting for pressure, and the way 
in which they do so is by supposing that there are an infinite number of 
little corpuscules in the space where pressure is in action, falling in all direc- 
tions, and striking against each other, and that by their impact pressure is 
produced. This view is quite contrary to what we were taught at Cambridge 
by I rofessor Airy, namely, that impact is a short and violent pressure. 
These authors cannot, on their supposition, account for variation of pressure, 
and consequently they put forward this strange hypothesis, that there are 
certain little doors in the space where pressure operates, and at each door 
