i88i.; ( 
Correspondence. 
429 
of Materialism as here stated. Nor is this all. What is the 
Energy, or vis incita, which is put forward, at p. 314 and else- 
where, as a generalisation of the Newtonian force of Gravita- 
tion, and inseparable from every particle of matter ? Energy 
means working power, but this of necessity implies a being who 
works and exerts the power : and as the energy is everywhere, at 
one and the same time, the Worker must be everywhere, at all 
times. This energy is manifested universally, not only in Gravi- 
tation, but in Light, Heat, and perhaps other of the imponder- 
ables ; for they seem to be all forms of motion in matter, — and 
where the work is going on, there the Worker must be. In as- 
cribing, therefore, all these natural results to Energy, Hylozoism 
virtually supposes a Being acting on or in matter ; and what is 
this but Dualism ? 
On p. 315 C. N. asserts that this inherent activity of matter 
renders a belief in “ creative acts ” superfluous and absurd, and 
removes the distinction between life and death (!), both of which 
are diverse manifestations of the same energy. Be it so ; but I 
have shown above that this Energy is virtually a synonym for the 
Being whom we recognise as God. And this is exactly what 
Dualistic philosophy affirms. 
But this leads me to revert to a statement made in p. 313, 
that “ Science cannot logically assume two causes where one is 
sufficient. It is C. N.’s logic that is at fault here ; for there are 
two manifest fallacies in this short sentence. Does he deny what 
is called a chain of causation ? or the fact of one (so-called) cause 
depending, like a link, on an antecedent cause ? In this sense 
Science is bound to assume two, or perhaps several causes. 
Again, what is meant by a cause being sufficient ? If the cause 
alluded to is force or energy as an abstract notion, independent of 
a living agent, I entirely deny its sufficiency ; for it has no real 
existence as an entity. 
One word on the extraordinary assertion on p. 315, that “ if we 
cannot deny the existence of the soul, neither can we deny that 
of fairies, goblins, &c., or the reality of witchcraft.” This is a 
very rash inference ; for the worst and most absurd errors are 
often the corruptions or exaggerations of truths. And I decline 
to allow that truth is reponsible for the errors engrafted upon it 
by popular ignorance, or attempted to be fastened on it by its 
opponents, whether intentionally or otherwise. 
A little further on C. N. quotes my remark that plants are not 
possessed of moral faculties, and turns aside the force of it by 
allowing its truth, and then assuming that I was speaking not of 
the whole plant, but of the inorganic atoms of which they are 
built up ; observing that there is nothing to show that they will 
ever become a sentient organism. And he proceeds to compare 
this with certain well-known chemical changes which produce, 
from the same elements, compounds of the most opposite cha- 
racter and properties. But who imagines that in these latter 
