27 
Himself cannot destroy them, but they are immortal by the will of the 
Creator, and indestructible by the will of the Creator ; and we have no right 
to say that He could not change them. It is declared to us in the Scrip- 
tures that our spirits are immortal, and that is sufficient. It is so by the 
will of the Creator, and nothing that is said in this paper affects this con- 
clusion. The argument rather shows that they and all other things are 
ultimately the outcome of the will of the great Creator of all things. 
The Meeting was then adjourned. 
REPLY BY PROFESSOR CHALLIS. 
Having received a printed copy of the report of the foregoing discussion, 
and perceiving from the remarks and questions of the speakers that on 
several points it was desirable I should give further explanation, I shall avail 
myself of the permission given me to supplement the discussion by some 
remarks in reply, to introduce such additional considerations on those points 
as may appear to be required. 
Not knowing what section of the paper Mr. Harriot refers to in saying 
that I have “ somewhat mixed up the spiritual and the material,” I can only 
answer generally that with respect to distinguishing between what is spiritual 
and what is material, or between invisible things and things that are objects 
of sense, I think that I have only said what is in accordance with the doctrine 
taught by St. Paul in Rom. i. 19, 20, which passage is quoted in sec. 27. 
In 1 Cor. ii. 14, where the Apostle speaks of things which the natural man 
cannot know, because they are spiritually discerned, it seems, from what he 
says in verse 12, that spiritual discernment in its moral rather than in its 
intellectual sense is signified. 
I am much gratified by the Chairman’s assertion of his entire accordance 
with me with respect to the views contained in the passage which he quotes 
from sec. 23 (4) of the paper, and I quite agree with him in considering the 
main drift of my argument to be conveyed by the inferences drawn in that 
passage. If, notwithstanding this expression of assent to my views, I have 
thought it right to advert to some particulars in Mr. Brooke’s subsequent 
remarks, it is because he has himself asked for further information on certain 
points, and because I think that a discussion of the points he has referred 
to will tend very much to elucidate the question of the destructibility of 
matter. 
Mr. Brooke cites from sec. 24, “ According to the third hypothesis, all 
active force is resident in the ether,” and then proceeds to remark that “ This 
ether is an altogether hypothetical existence. We know nothing about it. 
We never can see, feel, test, or weigh it. In fact, we have no evidence of its 
existence beyond the necessity for the existence of some exceedingly elastic 
matter to convey from the sun the vibrations which constitute light and heat 
