366 Correspondence. [June, 
I answer, that the general light of the sky, which becomes less 
and less as the atmosphere becomes rarer, is the result of the 
reflecting properties of its molecules, whether gaseous or 
aqueous. And were a human eye placed beyond the atmosphere 
every part would appear absolutely black, except thejspaces oc- 
cupied by the sun and other celestial bodies, whose brightness 
would be almost insupportable. In the same way sensible heat 
depends much less upon the diredt rays of the sun than upon the 
secondary vibrations set up in the denser media by which we are 
here surrounded : it is only in part due to the direcft heat-rays 
of the sun. 
To my own mind the conviction appears irresistible, that not 
only does the ether “ proceed direCt from the will of the Creator,” 
but that all its wondrous motions are nothing else and nothing 
less than the constant, regular, and orderly aCting of the same 
Will, using it as its main instrument throughout the universe. 
And as I seem to be challenged (p. 276) to say what I conceive 
force to be, I do not hesitate to define it as the adting of the will 
of a living mind (either original or created), and that all physical 
forces which are not the result of created minds, are necessarily 
the outcome on the Supreme Mind and Will. 
I must not trespass further upon your space than to add, that 
my name, unabbreviated, will be found at the head of the first 
article in your Journal of last January. — I am, &c., 
H. B. 
A FIRST CAUSE. 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science. 
Sir, — I submit that the following is a reply to the letter of 
“ A Lucretian,” on p. 304 of last No. of your Journal. Dr. 
Buchner says “ a force can only exist in as far as it is aCtive 
this is quite right. Newton says of it “ consistit in actione sold .” 
But, using “ force ” in its correCt technical sense, it is clearly 
wrong to speak of the first cause of the world as a force . If we 
can give it any name derived from dynamics, we should call it an 
energy. But an energy does not depend on activity for existence. 
The very title of Dr. Buchner’s well-known book, “ Matter and 
Force,” taken in connection with its objeCt, is enough to show 
that he uses “ force ” ( kraft ) in a vague unscientific manner, and 
that he is open to the complaint made by Clifford against nume- 
rous writers on the subject of Force ( see “ Nature,” June 10, 
1880). — I am, &c., 
M. H. C. 
