304 
Correspondence . 
[May, 
A FIRST CAUSE. 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science. 
Sir, — Can you, or any or your anti-monistic contributors, pro- 
duce a reply to the following argument of Dr. Buchner’s ? — 
“ It is evident that a force can only exist in as far as it is aCtive; 
but a creative force, the first cause of the world, could therefore 
exist neither before nor after creation, since both before and after 
this aCt it would have to be inactive, and inaction is irreconcilable 
with force.” — I am, &c., 
A Lucretian. 
CHEMISTRY AND THE SEXES. 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science . 
Sir, — I expected to have been able to supplement my paper on 
the “ Materialism of the Sexes ” with one on “ Life,” and to 
have answered my critic, F. G. H., therein ; but pending its 
preparation I will reply now, lest he mistake silence for consent. 
1. How oxygen upsets my analogy I fail to perceive, nor does 
he explain. The elements are dual, but one element is not. 
2. Because Berzelius recognised that the grouping of the ele- 
ments was only a relative distinction, does that bind the world to 
eternity to accept Berzelius as an infallible authority ? 
3. F. G. H. denies that both classes of metallic and non- 
metallic elements are necessary to the formation of productions, 
and cites sodium amalgam, adding parenthetically his own 
contradiction, for he says it is attended with the production of 
“ flame.” If F. G. H. will show the world how flame can be 
produced without the assistance or participation in it of the above 
dual classes, his fame is made. 
4. F. G. H. is facetious because I describe air as a “ dual 
combination of oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen ” ! What his 
objection exactly is, is not clear. Whether three elements com- 
bining — although two are of one class, and one of another — is 
not a dual combination, or whether he denies hydrogen to be a 
constituent of air, no one can gather from his sentence. Per- 
haps he knows what he means himself, but the objeCt in writing 
is usually to make others divine the meaning clearly. 
5. The critic’s last sentence is the strangest of all. Because 
compounds have properties “ totally ” different from their ele- 
