311 
known being, independent of that force, as Professor Birks has represented 
in the foregoing quotation. Force itself is the divinity which these philo- 
sophers would wish to seat upon the throne of the universe. Mr. 
Herbert Spencer does not assume, first, an unknown being correspond- 
ing to God, and then the force, but that force itself is the unknown 
being, the God, the Divinity of the universe. Lastly, the Professor 
gives us an illustration to which attention has been already called. 
“A cannon-ball is shot upward at the rate of a thousand feet a 
second. The doctrine affirms this speed of motion to be the very same 
thing with the place of that ball on the top of a mountain three miles high.” 
Mr. Brooke took exception to that statement : I am sorry that I did not 
quite follow him in his observations, but the illustration, as it appears to me, 
in order to be quite consistent with what has gone before ought to be this : — 
Suppose a cricket-ball is thrown up by a human arm at the rate of 300 feet a 
second, then the doctrine affirms that that speed or motion is the same thing 
with the force in the arm which threw up the ball. Before I sit down I 
should like to refer to one aspect of the question in regard to which I quite 
agree with Professor Birks, namely : Mr. Herbert Spencer’s position that 
“ the persistence of force ” is an ultimate idea of the human mind. In fact, 
Mr. Spencer wishes to place us, in regard to that idea, precisely in the 
position of Moliere’s Monsieur Jourdain, who, without knowing it, had all 
his life been talking prose. We, in the same way, without knowing it, have 
always been believing in the indestructibility of force. That appears to 
me to be a most dangerous position to assume. As Professor Birks has 
most ably put before you, it would involve most dangerous conclusions, and 
would provide a way for the introduction of most crude and mischievous 
principles. You first assume that a thing is true, and having shown that it 
cannot be proved a posteriori, you further assume that it is d priori truth — a 
truth which has always been believed by men, and which cannot possibly be 
disbelieved. If you admit that principle it will be obvious to every one that 
you admit a principle which might have most dangerous results. 
The Rev. S. Wainwrjght, D.D. — Had the last speaker not been a new mem- 
ber, he would have known that we are not in the habit of talking of what is 
orthodox or heterodox, but that the one aim of our discussions- is to 
sift each question brought before us, and find out the truth. (Hear, hear.) 
On this ground I am bold enough to take my stand by the author 
of the paper, and without doing what I am sure he would not wish me to 
* do— attempting to defend every line and letter that he has written. I say he 
has gratified us with an admirable argument, and ably sustained it. (Hear, 
hear.) At the same time I do not desire to oppose Mr. Brooke. 
Professor Birks and Mr. Brooke have said very much the same thing 
on a great many points. Professor Birks says very distinctly that force 
and motion are definite things and can be defined. Mr, Brooke says exactly 
the same thing. Mr. Brooke says motion is one thing, energy is another— 
that is exactly what Professor Birks has said. Professor Birks says that 
