104 
the feelings belong. Who, then, are we ? How can we “ have,’* 
if we do not exist? — and Mr. Bray says we do not, for force 
is all. Had he said we are feelings, and feelings are force, and 
force is all, he would have been consistent ; but, as it is, his 
language is meaningless. “ Force is all ;” that is the assumption; 
consequently, we are not we, for force is not personal — feelings 
are not feelings, for force is not conscious — ideas are not ideas, 
for force is not reflective — mental attributes are not mental 
attributes, for force has no mind ; and so on with almost any 
quality or attribute that could be named. And this is the 
vaunted science of the nineteenth century, before which Moses 
must hide his diminished head ! 
10. Again he writes, — “ We find, then, but one thing in the 
world — Force ; and what is that ? Force and Power are the 
same, and Power we cannot separate from that source of all 
power — from God; Power is God. We say f the power of God,’ 
as if it could be separated from him, or delegated ; but this is 
clearly inconceivable. The one only thing we find anywhere is 
God.” It does not in the least follow that because we speak 
of the power of God, power can therefore be separated from 
God ; we mean that it is an attribute of God, but is not 
itself God. When we speak of the thought of a man, we 
do not thereby imply that the thought may he separated from 
the man, even while he communicates it toothers; and still les 
do we mean that the thought is the man, 
11. According, however, to Mr. Bray, “ Force is all,” and God 
is all. Consequently, Force and God are convertible terms. 
Force might be substituted for God in all worship, and all 
religions. His language, however, is so confused and contra- 
dictory, that it would be impossible to construct any consistent 
system from it, or rather it might be quoted in support of any 
conceivable system. In one place, he says that force is all ; 
and then on the next page he speaks of “ every atom pulling 
at every other atom.” In one place he says there is nothing 
underlying phenomena, and yet again speaks of an intelligent 
substance, which substance is atomic, which atoms are force. 
Such writing, while it does not need refutation, does need 
exposure. 
12. The utterances of Professor Huxley on this point are not 
much more satisfactory, although they do cut away all the 
ground from Materialism, properly so called. In his lecture 
on Descartes, he says, — “ When the Materialists stray beyond 
the borders of their path, and begin to talk about there being 
nothing else in the universe but matter and force, and necessary 
laws, and all the rest of their ‘ grenadiers,’ I decline to follow them. 
I remind you that we have already seen clearly and distinctly, 
