forcibly worked out one particular point by showing that the argument as 
to continuity of force does not depend on the observations of a trained 
intellect. It is not so very long since the doctrine of continuity of force was 
discovered. Surely there was accurate thought before then. It is simply 
like the question of the indestructibility of matter which has for long engaged 
human thought, namely, whether matter did not exist from infinity, a defined 
quantity of matter which chemistry declares to have always been the same. 
A piece of wood does not vanish into nothing because you burn it, but 
simply becomes gaseous, the same weight of matter remaining at the end of 
the process as at the beginning. The doctrine of the quantitative estimation 
of the forms of matter has infinitely promoted the modern knowledge of 
chemical and physical science ; but has this in the smallest degree shaken 
the Christian faith ? I really cannot see that it has done so ; on the contrary, 
the Christian faith has survived unchanged. The modern chemist is neither 
more nor less a Christian, although he believes that the quantity of matter 
is for all practical purposes the same at all times. "Why, then, should the 
doctrine of the conservation of energy and of a defined quantity of force being 
the same for all practical purposes, have the slightest effect on the Christian 
faith? We are not more or less atheists or more or less Christians, 
because we believe that when the diamond is heated to a certain degree 
it becomes carbonic acid, which we cannot see, and ceases to be carbon ; and 
we are not more nor less believers, because a piece of charcoal becomes dissi- 
pated into carbonic acid, leaving very small traces behind. The fact is that 
we are simply obliged to come back to this point, that a great many 
modern scholars will not believe, and they cannot believe because they will 
not. There is such a thing as the will, and this will, which is denied by 
some of these men of science, is, after all, exerting the most extraordinary 
force over their own convictions. These scholars are themselves governed by 
the will they deny, and the very denial of their will is a proof of that 
will which brings them so to exercise their minds as to deny the will by 
which they are at all times influenced. 
Rev. Professor Dabney (of Virginia, U.S.A.). — I wish to add my modest 
word of obligation for the paper read this evening. I confess myself very 
much instructed by it. I also wish to express the great gratification with 
which I have heard the declarations that have been made, that the power of 
conceiving a proposition is not really necessary to its truth. I was reminded 
by what I heard, of the emphatic way in which the great Dr. Parr put this fact 
before the mind of a conceited young theologian who was advancing a scheme 
of theology of which this proposition was somewhat the corner-stone, — that 
nothing was to be believed except what was conceivable. As the anecdote 
goes, the old doctor said, “ You, sir, must perforce have the shortest creed 
of any young gentleman in the kingdom.” And I think that the more widely 
we extend our knowledge of theology, philosophy, and physics, the more 
must we comprehend and believe things which otherwise are beyond our 
comprehension. A gentleman in this room, to whom I listened with much 
satisfaction, suggested a protest which has more than once arisen in my own 
