303 
of action in lifeless matter I believe the theory to be true, 
though direct proof of its truth, by strict induction, is far 
beyond the actual attainments of science. But the conditions 
it involves, and without which its truth is impossible, seem 
quite hidden from many of those who are loudest in its praise, 
since they contradict and deny every one of them in turn. 
When its claims are carried higher, to bind all nature fast in 
fate, make prayer unreasonable, responsibility a dream, and the 
moral government of a Creator and Jndge impossible, the folly 
and self-contradiction are extreme. For the doctrine is not 
proved at all, except in the region of matter, from which choice 
and discrimination, pain, pleasure, emotion, duty, faith, love, 
are wholly absent. And even within its own proper limits, 
where the eye is not blind, it points clearly and irresistibly to 
higher truths. Such forces, varying with the distance, cannot 
act at all without distances assigned to the atoms, and in the 
law itself there is nothing to assign them. They point upward 
to the choice of a Supreme Will. And the law itself repeats 
the same lesson in another form. Whether attractive or repul- 
sive, it loses itself in the infinitude of distance at one extreme, 
as the atoms diverge, and the infinitude of force at the other, 
when they coalesce into one. Thus the law loses itself in the 
mystery of Divine Omnipresence on one side, and on the other, 
in the abyss of the Divine Omnipotence. It repeats, in hum- 
bler tones, and from the lowest platform of science, the lesson 
which crowns the noble unfoldings of Christian Theology. 
“ For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to 
whom be glory for ever. Amen ! ” 
A vote of thanks was then conveyed to Professor Birks for his able paper. 
Mr. C. Brooke, F.B.S. — Inasmuch as. some views put forward in a 
paper of mine have been alluded to and directly contravened by Professor 
Birks, I think I may fairly claim the privilege of being the first to make 
some observations. I am free and happy to say that the main object of 
Professor Birks’s paper — that of confuting the infidel and irreligious ten- 
dencies of modern scientific thought — is entirely in harmony with my 
own views, and with the intention of my paper already referred to ; but, 
inasmuch as I am accused in the paper before us of falling into the 
very same class of errors which I have imputed to others, I think it 
but fair that I should be permitted to clear myself if I can. Now, in 
legitimately attacking a theory, it is of course desirable to represent 
what it does, and not what it does not mean ; but I must express my regret 
that in this paper I think the doctrine of the conservation of energy is repre- 
sented to mean a great many things which, so far as I understand it, it does 
not mean, and was never supposed to mean by any of its advocates. The 
y 2 
