32 
one who has the power to unmake and make the same things, to do and un- 
do, or, as would be said in modern phraseology, is a frce-agent, is the author 
of his own transgression. Although the Apostle has not used the word 
“ free-agent ” (it would have been surprising if he had done so), he expresses 
in concrete terms what may be considered to be a definition of free- agency, 
namely, that it consists in the power to perform actions which are the exact 
contraries one of another. Now, since free-agency must certainly be pre- 
dicated of the omnipotent Creator of all things, it follows from this argument 
that the power to create implies the power to destroy, that what is created 
is destructible by the power that created it. Thus the proposed proof of the 
creation of matter, if valid, is a proof of its destructibility, or a disproof of 
its indestructibility. It is on this ground that I say, “ If matter be inde- 
structible, it could not have been created.” See what is farther said on this 
point in the next paragraph. 
The remarks of “ A Visitor ” are in part answered by what has just been 
said in reply to Dr. Fisher ; but certain of his arguments require to be 
specially taken notice of. He says, “ I think some strong reasons have been 
put forward that matter is not destructible,” and then asks “ whether it 
follows, if matter is proved indestructible, that it never could have been 
created?” Certainly it follows, if my argument be good, that if matter 
should be proved to be indestructible, its non-creation is also proved ; but 
for the following reason I deny the possibility of such proof. The “ strong 
reasons” alleged, as above said, for regarding matter as not destructible, 
rest, I presume, on experimental evidence, respecting which I have admitted 
(sec. 2) that it is capable of establishing the indestructibility of matter as a 
law. But it must be considered that while it is within the power of human 
intelligence to discover natural laws, it is the prerogative of the Creator to 
originate the laws, and that (by the argument in the preceding paragraph) 
the power that gave them existence can abrogate them. For this reason the 
proof of absolute indestructibility of matter is not possible, although it may 
be possible, by arguments which prove that it was created, to prove that it 
is destructible. Consequently, of the “ three alternatives ” “ A Visitor ” 
proposes, I adopt the first. With respect to the argument he derives from 
the immortality of spirit, I agree with Mr. Challis in the view that created 
spirits are immortal, or indestructible, not by any originally bestowed virtue 
or principle, but by the ever operative will and power of their Creator, who, 
as He made them and fashions them, can, if He will, destroy them. With 
respect, however, to this question, it is to be considered that, according to 
Scripture, our Creator has promised that in the “ new heavens and new 
earth ” that are to be created, righteousness, which is the basis of spiritual 
life, shall “ dwell,” and consequently assurance is given that the life of spirit 
will indeed be “indissoluble” (Heb. vii. 16), inasmuch as “it is impossible 
for God to lie ’’ (Heb. vi. 18), or cease to fulfil His promise. 
