237 
there is stationed a being — a spiritual, intelligent being — who opens or shuts 
the door to let the atoms pass through or to stop them, so as to regulate the 
amount of the collision, and thus to produce variation of pressure. This is 
the most extraordinary idea relating to physical science I ever saw pro- 
pounded. No doubt it is a very great difficulty to account for the variation of 
pressure on any physical hypothesis — I mean the variation of the pressure of 
the ether ; and the difficulty is not diminished when the attempt is supple- 
mented by this sort of spiritual agency. My view is, that we have nothing to 
say about the quality of pressure excepting that we have an instance in our 
own -persons of spiritnal agency, by which matter can be moved. That idea 
Sir John Herschel, the greatest of modern philosophers, produced in one of 
his publications, where he said that the power of moving the arm is one of 
the most wonderful facts in creation. The idea amounts to this, that there 
exists a spiritual power which we, as spiritually constituted, are conscious 
of, whereby we can move matter. It is but a short step from this to say that 
there is a spiritual power which can move the ether and produce the great 
effects we perceive to be consequences of its motion. This is not a very 
violent transition, and I think it might be accepted, rather than have recourse 
to the idea of the agency of little spiritual beings. With regard to the ques- 
tion of miracles, and the phrase “ creative energy,” which Prebendary Eow 
objected to, I cannot see any difficulty about the application of that expres- 
sion to miracles, if we allow of creation at all. If you do not allow of creation, 
why, then, the objection to applying that expression to miracles remains in 
force. Philosophers, who object to miracles, try to get rid of personal agency 
in creation ; but, if creation be admitted to be a fact, I do not see that it 
could have taken place without personal energy. I may also mention that I 
have heard it constantly said that no atom was ever destroyed — that an atom of 
matter is indestructible. Now, it seems to me that that is very false philo- 
sophy ; for if you make that assertion, you do in effect maintain that matter 
was not created. You cannot assert of matter that it is indestructible, 
because that would be equivalent to saying that it was not created. I think 
a great deal of philosophical error arises from assuming as an incontrovertible 
truth that matter can never be destroyed. This point, as implying the 
non-creation of matter, touches the question of miracles. One would think, 
for instance, that the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand must have 
involved the creation of matter — it is hard to see how it could otherwise have 
been wrought. 
The Meeting was then adjourned. 
