238 
SUPPLEMENTARY REPLY. 
[Professor Challis having imperfectly heard the discussion on his Paper, 
and not being accustomed to address audiences extemporaneously, requested 
that the speech which he made in reply, on the occasion of the Meeting, 
might be supplemented by the following remarks, written after seeing the 
discussion in printed form] : — 
I was not surprised to find that the title of my Paper had given rise to 
misapprehension as to its purport, sucli as that mentioned by Bishop Abraham, 
and I therefore take occasion to explain further, that I adopted this title with 
reference to the views of modern metaphysical writers, who draw from facts 
and laws established by physical science conclusions adverse to the statements 
of Scripture relating to miracles and spiritual agency (which I designate 
generally by the terms “ The Metaphysics of Scripture”), and it was my object 
to prove that the Newtonian Physical Philosophy , rightly understood and 
comprehensively carried out, stands in no contradiction to these statements 
Relative to the remarks in Dr. Angus’s letter, I wish only to add that I have 
no objection whatever to translating irvivp a Qcou “ the Spirit of God,” on the 
general linguistic principle of diversity of usage of the article in different lan- 
guages, its use, for instance, in Greek being partially dispensed with, and in 
atm entirely, where in English and French it could not be omitted. The 
context decides whether in the absence of the article in the original it should 
® * dmitted ln the translation. If the article had been present in the passage 
of Genesis, the translation must have been “the Spirit of God,” and the 
Septuagint would then have asserted what is altogether unimaginable, namely 
at spirit— the Spirit of the Creator— was borne up by the material substance 
of water On this ground alone I said that “ the Septuagint does not admit 
of that translation.” The absence of the article allows of escape from this 
incongruity by translating “breath of God,” meaning air, the breathin- of 
which is a necessary condition of life. I forgot to mention at the meeting an 
intimation from my son, who read the Paper for me, that Josephus with 
reference to this passage has <e a wind.” 
I beg to return my thanks to Prebendary Row for the full and careful con- 
sideration he has given to portions of my essay, and for the measure of 
accordance therewith which he took occasion to express. There are, however 
points of difference which I propose to take notice of. Having already 
answered the question as to the materiality and atomic constitution of the 
ether, to the additional question. “If it is so constituted, whence did the 
power of pressure it is supposed to have originate ? ” I make reply that I know 
nothing of either power or pressure apart from the indications of my own 
consciousness, and that I am conscious to myself of being able to press by 
