297 
of them are functions of the inverse distance, and of that alone. 
It fails in three cases, all conceivable, one probable, and another 
certainly true : that the ultimate atoms are finite, and may 
come into direct collision ; that forces exist, such as vital forces 
seem to be, depending on time as well as distance ; and that 
selection or choice mingles with the action of force, so that all 
change is not blind, indiscriminate, and purposeless activity. 
And even when these cases are excluded, the constants of 
position, which are three times as many as the atoms of the 
universe, could never be determined by the mere laws of force. 
They must be explained by the will and foreseeing wisdom of 
the Supreme Architect and Governor of the universe, and can 
be reasonably accounted for in no other way. For, as Newton 
truly observes, “ blind necessity, which is the same always and 
everywhere, could never produce this wonderful variety of 
natural things.” 
A third view has still to be examined, — that the Conservation 
of Energy, though not a necessary truth, is still a proved result 
of scientific induction. The author of the interesting paper on 
Force and Energy, read here two years ago, adopts this 
position. Ilis doctrine is that the energy of the universe is 
shown by experiments to remain unchanged, not that it is un- 
changeable. The creation of matter, he says, must imply the 
creation of energy. Those who deny the possibility of one, 
must deny the other also. They must, in fact, deny the exist- 
ence of Omnipotence. The writer complains, also, very truly, 
of the confusion and ambiguity with which these two names, 
Force and Energy, are often used. But his own definitions of 
them seem to me clearly erroneous, and the attempt to prove 
the principle as a universal, though not a necessary truth, 
wholly to fail. 
Three fundamental errors have been already pointed out, 
which contradict the first principles of clear dynamical reasoning: 
that statical pressures are not forces, that friction is not a force, 
and that one body in motion can move another without the 
intervention of any force whatever. The last of these would 
reduce the whole science of dynamics to a heap of ruins, and 
undo and unteach all that Newton and his successors have 
taught and done. 
The statements concerning Energy, and its relation to Force, 
seem to me plainly inconsistent, and neutralize each other. 
First, force is that which produces mutual attraction and re- 
pulsion (§ 8). Next, it is attraction or repulsion, a push or a 
pull (p. 28). The second statement is exact, and not the first. 
It cannot be attraction or repulsion, and something else which 
