668 Force and Matter. [November, 
compatible with the notion of force.” A steam-engine has 
always its force, although not always manifested. So a man 
may be intensely intelligent, yet not always exerting his 
powers. Watt employed the reflection of years before he 
presented his thought to the world enbodied as a steam- 
engine ; but by the aCt his intellect was not impaired. Time, 
as we understand it, is an invention of man to suit the cir- 
cumstances under which he exists, and is really but the way 
mark for a succession of events. “ A force which is not 
manifested does not exist.” Does the author understand the 
meaning of the static and dynamic states of force ? One 
would think not, because he says that a force not manifested 
“ cannot be taken into account in our reasoning.” He then 
says, ** there remains but a third possibility . . .that creative 
power has suddenly and without any occasion arisen out of 
nothing-— had created the world (out of what ?), and had 
again in the moment of completion collapsed within itself, 
and, so to say, dissolved itself into the universe.” Intelligence 
may be used and by use become more powerful ; repose, to 
awake again in its pristine power ; and so it may be that 
when the creative power embodied its intelligence and pre- 
sented a world with all its necessary energies, the intelli- 
gence relapsed within itself, again to be used, and so on to 
all eternity, but never spent by adbion. 
Helmholtz says that “ there is no mechanism but that 
which is the result of intelligence,” and if we go to our world 
life, we find no invention that is not an embodied thought. 
We see the machine, we also see in it the embodiment of 
the intelligence of its inventor. We look on a grand picture. 
What do we admire, the paints or their arrangement ? In 
their disposition do we not see the mind and skill of the 
painter staring at us from his canvas ? We do not suppose 
the glorious conception thereon embodied was the accidental 
arrangement of the pigments. The painter’s mind is inter- 
fused into his work. He embodied the ideal his mind pre- 
sented, and it is that mind which excites its sympathetic 
adtion in the mind of the beholder. 
This argument being extended makes it possible (assuming 
that there is a creative power notwithstanding Dr. Buchner’s 
assertion that there is not) that the creative power having 
completed the nucleus, out of which the glorious panoply we 
term nature arose, by an interfusion within this nucleus of 
the intellect and energy which conceived it, and then became 
sufficient for its own development and maintenance ; hence 
this energy, which is the inherent power of phenomena, is 
always active. This is a simple conception of creative power 
