Henry Bray nsIn existographies, Thomas Henry Truro Bray (1846-1922) (IQ:180|#167) (SN:23) (CR:50), going by "Henry Truro Bray", was an English-born American priest turned physician and philosopher noted, in human chemistry, for his 1910 The Living Universe, wherein he outlines a Goethe-Haeckel-Huxley stylized divine-causality ingrained physicochemical-monism, aka living universe theory, a book generally classified as the last intellectually sober attempt at panbioism.

Overview
Bray's first books are: The Knowability of God (1887), God and Man (1888), The Evolution of A Life: from the Bondage of Superstition to the Freedom of Reason: an Autobiography (1890), and Reason and Dogma (1894), which began to outline his monism views, and which got him expelled from the church.

In 1910, Bray published The Living Universe, his most-popular work, which sold some 25,000 copies in America, with its chapter nineteen on “Atomic and Human Affinities”, which attempts explain how the chemical affinities between reactive atoms and molecules relates to human affinities or affinities between reactive humans. [1]

Bray's last, posthumous it seems, work appears to be the circa 1923 The Voice of the Universe. [3]

Sulfuric acid | Heated
The following is Bray’s comparison (LU:263) of heating sulfuric acid in a solvent of alcohol to heated breakups in complicated friendships:

“With humanity the more complicated the friendship, the more easily it is dissolved; so with atomic compounds. Sulphuric acid is a complicated compound. If it be forced to endure much hardship, it will break up. Heat it in alcohol, and we get alcohol water and olefiant gas. The acid has been completely dissolved.”

(add)

Carbon dioxide | Pressurized
The following is Bray’s take (LU:263) how the recognizable properties of a friend can change similar to that of pressurized carbon dioxide:

“We also know that suffering, worry, care, and other evils at times so change one that even his friends fail to recognize him. This is true in the case of atomic compounds, and even with some of the atoms. If carbon dioxide be put under great pressure, at a low temperature, it is converted into a liquid; and none of its friends recognize it in its new form. It is a form it hates; and when left at liberty, begins rapidly to resume its former state.”

(add)

Oxygen + Nitrogen | Cyanides
The following is Bray’s comparison of how people who unite under common danger is akin to cyanide formation:

“There are certain persons between whom friendship is almost impossible; yet such are known to become attached to each other, and to combine against a common enemy, or because of common danger. Thus with the atoms. Oxygen seems to hate nitrogen, refusing under ordinary circumstances to have anything to do with it. If however they happen near each other, surrounded by great heat, in the presence of metals (in this instance a common enemy), they will unite, and form cyanides.”

(add discussion)

Hot carbon | Nitric acid
The following is Bray’s example (LU:262) of burning a heated stick of something under a liquid solution of nitric acid:

“So also if you put the heated end of a stick into a test-tube one-fourth filled with concentrated nitric acid [HNO3], the charcoal [C] will continue to burn, giving a bright light, even though it be beneath the surface of the liquid. This shows how easily the oxygen forsakes its companions, hydrogen and nitrogen, and cleaves to its newly found friend, carbon.”

Here, in respect to burning under liquid, were are reminded of the similar views of Buchner:

Potassium and phosphorus entertain such a violent passion for oxygen that even under water they burn—i.e. unite themselves with the beloved object.”
Ludwig Buchner (c.1855), Publication; cited by Henry Finck (1887), Libb Thims (2007) [8]

(add)

Barium oxide | Heated
The following is Bray’s example (LU:262) of heating barium oxide:

“Sometimes persons brought together through common suffering are driven asunder when exposed to greater evils. So if barium oxide [BaO] be heated in a current of air at a temperature above 400°C, it will leave its companion, and take up ‘single blessedness’ again.”

Secondly, we see Bray inserting religio-anthropomorphic concepts of "evil" (unnatural) and "blessings" (god) into chemistry. A more recent example of this type of religio-insertion is found in the work of Mirza Beg (1987) who inserts Islamic concepts into physical chemistry, albeit not directly as Bray, but indirectly. As a general rule, the only way anthropomorphism can be extrapolated into chemistry, is if the they informally hold up and down the great chain of being and in the view of universal laws of science. In other words, if one were so persuaded, into Bray's view of things, in order for such interjections to hold, one would have to reform all of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics into a new version, such that it would be tenable and correct to say that concept such as "god" and "evil" are involved when, say, hydrogen [H2] reacts with oxygen [H2] to form water [H20]:

2H2 + O2 → 2H2O

which may very-well float boats in the new age crowd, but is two-centuries archaic in the modern university classroom.

Potassium iodide | Mercurous salt
The following is Bray’s example (LU:262) of how the ties of certain newly formed friendships can easily severed similar to a mixture of potassium iodide KI and mercurous salt:

“We all know how unstable newly formed friendship is. It takes but little trial, little hardship, little suffering to sunder such ties. So if potassium iodide be added to a solution of a mercurous salt, mercurous iodide [Hg2I2] is formed; but the friendship is unstable: on little suffering, exposure, it breaks up into mercury [Hg] and mercuric iodide, the former going one way and the latter another.”

(add)

Mercuric sulfide | Iron flings | Heated
The following is Bray’s example (LU:262) of heated mercuric sulfide HgS with iron Fe filings, which has the following reaction: (Ѻ)(Ѻ)(Ѻ)

HgS + Fe + heat → Hg + FeS

as a model of a single displacement marriage FxFy1 decoupling reaction in humans, which, for second woman Fy2 acting as the iron fillings, reads as:

MxFy1 + Fy2 + heat → MxFy2 + Fy1

In words:

“If you heat mercuric sulphide with iron filings, the sulfur will unite with the iron, letting the mercury in the lurch; so in like manner if a man or wife be brought into the company of a third party of the opposite sex who has greater attraction than has the wedded mate, the result will be the severance of the bonds of wedlock, and the formation of a new union. This is just what happened in the case of the sulfur. The cause of the severance of the old relations, and the manner through which new were formed, are exactly similar; there was the temptation of a third party, and the more powerful attraction of the new acquaintance.”

(add)

Red solid mercury and friends (heated) diagram
An illustration of Bray’s assertion that heating will bring about dissolution in mercury(II) oxide HgO into its components, namely liquid mercury Hg, which will precipitate on the glass of the test tube, and oxygen O2 which will leave as gas (see: vid); just as it will the dissolution of weak friendships into its components (non-friends); and conversely that the heating of Hg in oxygen O2, at roughly 350°C, will bring about the red form of HgO (Ѻ), just as the when the same sexes are “exposed to excitation” (e.g. shaky bridge experiment) (Ѻ)(Ѻ) or “allurement and blandishments” will two more likely tend to fall in love and form a union according to Bray.
Heated | Red mercuric oxide | Friends
The following is Bray’s comparison (LV:261) of the heating of red mercuric oxide HgO, which accrues via the following reaction: (Ѻ)

2 HgO + heat → 2 Hg + 2O2

to the dissolution of weak friendships:

“When red mercuric oxide is heated in a test-tube, it disappears, oxygen being liberated, and mercury deposited on the sides of the test-tube. In like manner when intimate friends impose on each other, and take undue advantage of their relations, we find a dissolution of friendship.”

This phenomenon, historically, was discovered in Aug 1774, when Joseph Priestley heated a red solid powder (mercury oxide) by using a lens to focus sunlight onto it, during which he observed that a silvery liquid (mercury) was formed as well as some unknown gas. On studying this gas he found that a candle burned much more brightly in it than in ordinary air. Priestley had discovered oxygen but he called the gas ‘dephlogisticated air’ (Ѻ), being that heat, he believed, operated according to phlogiston theory; the gas, accordingly, be reasoned was air without phlogiston.

Bray continues:

“Again, when mercury is slowly heated in oxygen, we get the compound red mercuric oxide. In like manner when the sexes [men and women] are exposed to excitation, allurement and blandishments, we have the probability always of 'falling in love', and forming a union.”

He then comments that one of the working functions parties, e.g. card parties, lawn parties, church particles, and entertainments of all kinds, etc., functions to bring the sexes together in an loose mingling and mixture sort of manner, i.e. loosening up the degrees of freedom, in a modern sense.

Degrees | Mind, Reason, Consciousness, Feelings
The following is Bray’s scale of degrees argument (LV:261), in respect to human-conceptualized mental qualities, such as reason and consciousness:

“The atom has reason and consciousness of itself; being infinitely little, its mental qualities are in like degree small; man being comparatively infinitely large, his mental qualities are in like degree great. But neither mind, nor consciousness, nor feeling is relatively greater in the one than the other.”

Bray, in other words, reasons that because he has “reason” and that because he evolved over time from the elements, that atoms too must, via the extrapolate down the great chain of being scale, have “reason” in similar manner, albeit of smaller degree. Only part of this reasoning, however, is correct. If, e.g. one defines the light-sensitive region of the structure-adjusting carbon atoms, of certain molecules, e.g. retinal (see: ABC model) to be the location of “mental qualities”, then certain conceptualized models will scale up and down, thereby being physico-chemically neutral in argument. The majority of what Bray says here, however, is anthropomorphization of atoms, i.e. human-biased argument. We need to remove “anthropisms” from our arguments, as Charles Sherrington (1938) advised.

Degrees | Love ↔ Affinity
The following is Bray’s scale of degrees argument in respect to matters of love:

“In love-matters as in atomic affinity the manifestation of choice is the common activity, or phenomenon; and this same activity is the one common element of all intellectual endeavor, whether infinitely little or infinitely great; whether in the consciousness of an atom, an amoeba, or that of a Newton. The difference is one of degree only.”

Here we get into a more complex problem, in that the phenomenon of the “manifestation of choice” at the atomic level and human level must both operate via the same general mechanism, which is was the focus of Goethe’s famous treatise Die Wahlverwandtschaften (see: title decoding); according to which the "mechanism of choice", common to both, is the real subject of discussion.

Existences | Higher & Lower
See also: Darwin on higher and lower
The following is Bray’s response (LU:263-64) to the statement “man is the most wonderful creation of god”, made by a physician, in a June issue of the Journal of American Homeopathy:

“The chief barrier that has prevented and does prevent man from seeing himself as others see him, is his inborn egoism — the result of principles inculcated not merely during one short life, or one century, but during many thousands of years. I do not think that any candid scholar can find in man anything more wonderful than in ten thousand other existences. Indeed, he is much less wonderful than many of the most complex and highly developed plants and flowers; and certainly there are various insects fully as complex and wonderful as man, and many animals far more graceful and beautiful. Nor does man in general give any evidence of a higher origin; for speaking from extensive experience I am sure that the great majority of men live very irrationally.”

Bray goes on to say that man is part of the animal kingdom, which is part of the “offspring of mother earth”, and that we would be keen not to “belittle [animals], nor stultify ourselves, nor close our eyes to nature’s revelations, nor show ourselves recreant to the trust she has committed to us”. Here, firstly, we are reminded of Goethe’s thesis #1-2, from his Positions of Rights, namely: “Natural law is what nature has taught all creature. The custom cancels and corrects the written law.” Secondly, we are reminded of the historical tendencies of behavior modification run to into absurdities, when “existence” models are extended, e.g. veganism (John Stewart), Jainism (e.g. walking around naked with a broom to sweep bugs away from the path one is walking), etc.

Atom and Oak Tree
Bray's 1888 statement that the aggregate of the forces constituting and atom and oak tree are the same, and following monism speculations on matter and mind, caused him to be disposed from the ministry; similar to what happen to Pierre Teilhard in the 1920s.
Monism
In 1888, Bray, in his God and Man, as illustrated adjacent, stated the following monism view: [4]

“That the force constituting an oak tree is only an aggregation of the forces which constitute an atom, we have no reasonable doubt whatever; but an atom is not an oak. What then we ask is this essence which must be common to both? It is certain that if this essence be neither so-called matter nor so-called mind, whatever it may be, it must be unknown to us. This unknown essence must be the substance, the cause, of all things. In this unknown essence must so-called matter and so-called mind have their common unity, their true being; and in it must subject and object be united. What then shall we call this essence? We answer, since it can be neither so-called matter nor so-called mind, and yet must be the true essence of all things, we may call it the ultimate reality, the universal substance. To this ultimate substance must be referred all the phenomena of mind and matter; and in it must all existences blend, and have their true being. It must be the womb of all the forces in the universe; it must be the ‘thinking monon’, the universal intelligence, the ‘universal will’; and in this ‘universal monon’ must the body and soul of the universe be united. Here and here only can we find the explanation of so-called matter and so-called mind, and more than all of man's will.”

These word, as he says in twenty year retrospect, got “deposed from the ministry of the Episcopal Church” has he recounts in his The Living Universe. [4]
Mind from matter (Bray, 1910)
Bray's mind from matter diagram, wherein he asserts that they both arise from force.

Mind | Matter & Force
The following is Bray's patch solution of the mind from matter conundrum:

“An atom of so-called matter may not appear to the unphilosophical to have anything in common with so-called mind; but we may be sure there is a close relationship between them. We look at the sides of a triangle, and perhaps know that the sides A and B subtend an angle of 30°. The sides A and B are seen to be specifically different; but on a closer inspection they are each seen to arise from a common point, a common origin. At first they are not to be distinguished, nor can we detect the point itself in which they originate; but as they grow wider apart, we become able to distinguish them, and we call them A and B. Thus is it with mind and matter; they are phenomena arising from, or branching out of, the same common origin or force. This origin we do not, nor is it likely we ever shall, know. As we know the sides of the triangle and not the point of origin; so we know mind and matter, which are but two sides of the same thing, having their common origin in a point, or substance, or force unknown to us, and, as I believe, forever unknowable to finite intelligence. This ‘universal being’ or ‘substance’ will become more and more known to man, as the ages roll by, and he has time and opportunity for study and contemplation; but that it will ever be fully known to us, philosophy forbids us to hope.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds III, pg. 176-77)

Bray, in short, believes that mind and matter arise from the hydrogen atom, and the force within the atom, which associates with ‘universal being’, ‘substance’, god, or something forever unknowable.
Bray periodic table (1910) (70 elements)
Bray's 70 element periodic table, which he gives at the end of his chapter 8 "Atomic and Molecular Worlds III".

Atoms | Molecules
Bray gives the following definition of atoms and molecules:

“As the word ‘atom’ was coined to represent the smallest particle of matter in existence, or a mere point of force [see: Boscovich-Priestly atomic theory; point atom]; so the word ‘molecule’ is used to represent the smallest portion of matter that can exist in a free state [compare: bound state]. If we represent the molecule by a building, each stone in the building would represent an atom. A house is built of stones, and a molecule is built of atoms; as a house may be demolished, so may the molecule; the one not unfitly represents the other.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds III, pg. 176-77)

He then gives the example of hydrogen H2 and oxygen 02 reacting to form water H20:

hydrogen + oxygen reaction

the water of which he says can separated again by putting electricity in the water:

“I have said that a molecule is the least particle of matter that can exist in a free state. For instance, if you put into a glass-tube two volumes of hydrogen and one of oxygen, the gases will remain perfectly mixed, but will not cohere. But should you touch the mouth of the tube with a lighted taper, the two gases will immediately combine, causing an explosion, and forming water. If electricity be passed through the gases, the same result will take place. Now, the smallest particle of water imaginable will have the same number of volumes of these gases, namely two of hydrogen and one of water. Therefore we say that a molecule of matter is the smallest portion that can exist in a free state.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 177-78)

the unit H20, he says is the “smallest particle of matter”, i.e. molecule, that can “exist in the free state”, in water; this is followed by the example of hydrogen H2 and chlorine Cl2 gases reacting to form hydrochloric acid HCl:

Hydrochloric acid reaction

about which he says that HCl is the molecule, which contains two atoms, one of chlorine and one of hydrogen.

“Again, if you put into a bottle equal volumes of hydrogen and chlorine gases, and throw it into the air, so that it may be struck by the actinic solar ray, you will hear a violent explosion, the gases having combined to form hydrochloric acid. Of the acid thus formed it will again be found that however inconceivably small a portion you examine, it will contain one atom of chlorine and one of hydrogen.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 178)

(add)
Family molecule (Bray, 1910)
Bray's scaled up definition of "atom", as the smallest particle of [human] matter that exists as a force point, and "molecule", the smallest "free state" portion of [human] atoms necessarily forced into unions.

Human atoms | Human molecules
Bray, following his atom and molecule definition section, then jumps to the “humans are like atoms”, “families are like molecules” scaled up model:

“The molecule is therefore the smallest portion of matter that can exist in a free state. The solitary atom is like the human being necessarily forced, on the presentation of the first opportunity, to associate itself with others. Aristotle tells us (Politics I, 2, 9) that man is a political animal, ‘[Greek]’; and in another place (Politics I, 1, 2) that it is necessary for man and woman to unite their lives in order to prevent the disappearance of their own species: ‘[Greek]’. When brought face to face with the physical facts of the case, the chemist is almost led to infer a like social feeling existing in atoms, and by a little larger stretch of his imagination, he might suppose that with them too there exists a not altogether dissimilar necessity for union.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds III, pg. 176-78)

Bray then touches on Alfred Binet’s 1889 psychic life and sexual selection nature of microorganisms (Ѻ); along with Thomas Huxley’s deep sea bottom microorganisms.

“Psychic phenomena manifesting themselves in these [protozoa-like] momentary existences, these mere points of organisms, it does not appear unscientific to hold that potential life, and all the phenomena attending it, from the government of an Oklahoma village to that of the British empire, exists in the atom itself, even in the atom of hydrogen or helium.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds III, pg. 181-82)

Bray then cites the following as representative of his monism views:

Matter can never exist and be active without mind, nor can mind exist without matter.”
Johann Goethe (c.1820), in: The Living Universe (pg. 180)

“The idea of the unity of organic and inorganic nature is now firmly established. . . . All natural bodies which are known to us are equally animated, and the distinction which has been made between animals and inanimate bodies does not exist.”
Ernst Haeckel (c.1890), in: The Living Universe (pg. 180)

“A spirit exists in all things, and no body is so small but contains a part of the divine substance within itself, by which it is animated.”
Giordano Bruno (c.1590), in: The Living Universe (pg. 180)

He also cites Democritus as the originator of monism; and credits Bruno as having been the first to give voice to this type of “monistic conception of things”; noting that he was burned at the stake on 17 Feb 1600 for these views. Bray then gives three simple so-named laws of atomic unions, as he calls them, according to John Dalton and Joseph Gay-Lussac.

Sultan model 2
Bray, in his chemical affinity section, discussed how the formation of iron sulfate FeSO4 as akin to a sultan with a harem of four women (see: polyhumanide molecule); which is akin to Christopher Hirata's circa 2000 labeling of such model as a "middle-Eastern polygamous molecule", which he symbolically defined as X4Y.
Affinities | Chemical-to-Human
Bray goes into his Goethe-Empedocles stylized “affinities” digression, in what seems to the core of his new philosophy, as follows:

“The force which presides over chemical combinations, is called chemical affinity; and it is in the exhibition of this that atoms act so much like the forms of higher organisms. To illustrate: oxygen has but little affinity or atomic love, call it which you please, for copper, under general conditions; but as in the case of higher beings when you array them in their best, and make them as alluring as possible, so here,—if you heat the copper in the air oxygen will immediately rush to it, and with it form oxide of copper [Cu2O]. Their affinity for each other is now so great that they cannot be divorced, under ordinary circumstances. But even now if you mix this oxide with powdered charcoal, and then heat the mixture, a moment arrives when the affinity of the charcoal for the oxygen is greater than that of the copper, causing the oxygen to forsake the copper and unite with the charcoal to form carbonic acid [H2CO3]. The allurements of the charcoal suffice at last to cause the oxygen to leave its first love, and go with its new affinity.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 182)

“We see similar action often in the case of men and women. Again, the attraction of hydrogen [H2] for oxygen [O2] is very great under ordinary circumstances, causing them to live in the greatest harmony, as, for instance, in water [H2O]; but as at times a third party is seen to insinuate himself into a household, destroy its peace, and ultimately break up its union, so here if an atom of potassium [K], for instance, finds its way into a molecule of water, the peace of the molecular family is at once destroyed and jealousy and a murderous quarrel ensue, the metal burning brightly, and darting hither and thither on the surface of the water, exulting as it were in the mischief it works. In this contest of atomic affinity or love, the potash wins the day [H2O + K → KOH + H2], taking away with itself two blushing damsels for its harem, and leaving an atom of hydrogen [H2] like the last rose of summer to droop and die of a broken heart.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 182-83)

“The atoms that combine to form a new family or molecule do not absolutely touch one another, because each atom, being a point of force, must have a certain portion of space to vibrate in; but comparatively speaking the spaces that separate the atoms of a molecule one from another are reduced to zero by chemical affinity. As in the highest manifestations of consciousness, so in the atomic world, affinity sweeps all before it, being satisfied with nothing less than oneness of life. The spaces between contiguous molecules are much greater than those between contiguous atoms; for molecules are bound together by the force of cohesion, while atoms are bound together by that of chemical affinity. The difference between chemical affinity and cohesion is similar to that between mere friendship and a real union of hearts. Still, as each heart, however closely united to another, must have some room for independent act and thought, so has every atom its own little orbit of motion independent of the movement of the molecule as a whole. These spaces are supposed, and very properly so, to be full of ether, a substance near to the original force out of which this mighty fabric of a universe has been spun.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 183)

“As in the family too great independent action, or the striving after individual rather than joint welfare, must inevitably bring disruption of family ties, so in what is termed the inorganic world, excessive atomic or molecular activity brings disruption of the whole. In the family the assertion of excessive individuality may follow inflamed passions, and this is not without its parallel in the inorganic world. If you heat a solid body, the force thus applied expends itself partly in raising the body's temperature, and partly in increasing the distances which separate the molecules and atoms. As the heat is continued this independent molecular activity increases until the force of cohesion is almost entirely overcome. The molecules begin to slide freely over one another, as in the liquid state, no longer keeping their relative positions. In this state they move not unlike a straying comet or wandering star, or a human being who allured by the charmer, is on the very verge of forsaking both consort and children. If the heat be further increased, the molecules grow wider and wider apart until they move about independently of one another, as they do in the gaseous state, where each tries to possess the whole territory for itself.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 184)

“But as in the case of young people, if you encourage their acquaintance, and make marriage appear a gain to both, wedlock will probably ensue; so in the case of the triturated iron and sulphur mixed together; if you heat this mixture the sulphur will be seen first to melt, like a young lady unable to withstand further the tears and groans of her lover; then the whole mass will blacken, if the temperature be sufficiently elevated; and after cooling the substance will be found to be perfectly homogeneous. No power now can discriminate the iron from the sulphur. Both have disappeared as such, having formed a new substance known as sulphide of iron.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 185)

Bray, next, gives what seems to be the first date polyhumanide molecule examples of molecular polygamy, as follows:

“If now this sulphide of iron be allowed to remain in a damp atmosphere, an efflorescence will be seen to collect on its surface composed of a saline matter. The sulphide of iron has here attracted to its family-life certain other individuals. Like a sultan, or Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of old; so the iron, not being content with one young damsel, takes to itself four others, fair as the moon in its fullness, in the persons of four atoms of oxygen from the air, forming what is known as green vitriol or sulphate of iron.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 185-86)

(add)

Living atom (fence sitter)
Bray shown fence sitting on whether atoms are alive [see: living atom]; by virtue of the paradoxical situation that he can't figure out where he came "alive" in the descent down the great chain of being in respect to the forces in nature and in atoms?
Panbioism | Living atom
In the following we see Bray tentatively teetering on the panbioism fence, i.e. between living atom theory, the view that atoms are alive, and the defunct theory of life, the view that atoms are matter and force:

“On this ground very many atomic phenomena, not otherwise easily explained, are capable of ready solution. And while we may not have conclusive scientific reason for regarding atoms as living substances, it is more certain still that we are unable to say where life begins in the forces of nature.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds III, pg. 182)

Earlier, go note, Bray gave the following view:

“It is said the pure in heart see god. This saying is doubtless true. But he who has not eyes to see this god in the rippling brook, the sprouting seed, the budding tree, the suns that roll, or the hydrogen atoms, will look long ere he sees him elsewhere. I cannot doubt that one of the surest stepping-stones to a higher life, is the learning to love the beauties of nature as she displays them in her infinite variety of ever changing forms. The true student of nature sees in her not the dead thing which the unthoughtful imagine. Indeed, he is conscious that almost every form of power manifested by the highest human intelligence, is in some degree manifested by the most loathesome animalcule that we destroy without a thought of the wonderful powers shut up in this microscopic organism. As with the organic atom, so with the inorganic, — to the soul schooled to appreciate nature's revelations, nothing seems to be dead, nothing seems to be common.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§6: Atomic and Molecular Worlds I, pg. 159)

Bray, in other words, jumps into the conclusion that the hydrogen atom is not a "dead thing", but rather has some type of life associated with it; albeit done so tentatively.

“What is life may be subject of dispute; but it is far from true that we are no better able to answer this question to-day than last century. For ourselves we hold that life is immanent in substance; and we think it may be safely stated that modern science does not believe that it needs a truly organized structure for the manifestation of life. It is true we do not recognize conscious stones, nor conscious trees; but this does not prove that life is not universally diffused, and that the whole of nature is not indeed and in truth alive.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (pg. 204)

Later, Bray, in the opening of his §20: “Infinitesimal Architects, Builders, and Guardians” (pg. 266), in cites atom size estimates by: Josef Loschmidt (1865), Marc Gaudin (1866), and William Thomson (1867), he speculates on whether or not he is a fool or mad for positing that atoms are ‘living’, ‘thinking’, ‘conscious’ beings:

“In considering the origin and manifestation of life, it would be foolish to suppose that a being with the very limited powers of man, could possibly discriminate between the manifestation of so-called dead force and so-called living [living force], when having under consideration objects of such infinitely small proportions. Because therefore man cannot see the muscles of an atom contract, or its lips articulating, or watch its organs perform their various functions, there is no reason for affirming that the atom is not a living being. When the thing itself is infinitely beyond the understanding of the greatest mind, it were only madness to suppose that we could know all its attributes and qualities. If I have affirmed, and if I believe that the atom is a thinking conscious being, it is not because I have scientifically demonstrated its intelligence or personality; but because of far higher reasons than those of physical science: I am a thinking conscious being; and whatever is in me, must be in the atom either actually or potentially, it matters not which.”

Re: “therefore man cannot see the muscles of an atom contract”, with the Bohr model (1913), wherein the “muscles of the atom” are explained in terms of photon inputs and outputs paired to electron orbital jumps and descents, respectively, and the Wald model (1958), wherein light induced molecular bending and straightening is explained (Ѻ), according to which the “muscles of molecules” explained mechanistically, we are now able to “see” atomic or molecular contraction, thus we must reevaluate many of Bray’s conjectures in the modern light, one of which is the conclusion that life does not exist, either in the atom or in man.
Organic vs inorganic (urea model) 2
Friedrich Wohler's 1828 urea synthesis, which according to Bray "bridged the gap" between organic and inorganic or the "living and the dead" as Bray puts it.

Organic | Inorganic
On organic vs inorganic, in respect to chemistry and life, Bray says (LU:273-74) the following:

“Some years ago chemistry was divided into inorganic and organic branches, on the supposition that what is known as the life-principle was somehow a necessary factor in the formation of the organic compounds; but since very many of these compounds have been made, and are now daily making, in all the laboratories of the world, this supposed principle of differentiation has to be given up. Today organic chemistry is sometimes called, ‘chemistry of the carbon compounds’; sometimes, ‘chemistry of the hydro-carbons and their derivatives’. By whatever name one may call it, chemists no longer believe that organic chemistry is dependent on any so-called life principle for the formation of its compounds. Especially is this true since potassium cyanide [KCN], urea [CH4N2O], potassium formate [HCO2K], and acetylene [C2H2] were formed by Wohler and Berthelot: and since in our own day carbon compounds exactly as they exist in the bodies of plants and animals are prepared hourly with simply chemical means. Thus therefore the supposed chasm between the so-called living and the so-called dead has been most certainly bridged [compare: unbridgeable gap].”

We also recall the previous citation of Haeckel:

“The idea of the unity of organic and inorganic nature is now firmly established. . . . All natural bodies which are known to us are equally animated, and the distinction which has been made between animals and inanimate bodies does not exist.”
Ernst Haeckel (1862), The History of Creation (pg. 22); in: The Living Universe (pg. 180)

(add discussion)
Atomic and Human Affinities
Bray's §19: “Atomic and Human Affinities”, wherein he begins to get into the meat of his discussion; an equivalent modern title would be “Atomic and Human Free Energies”, being that affinity and free energy are equivalent, via the Goethe-Helmholtz equation.

Atomic | Human affinities
Bray, in his §19: “Atomic and Human Affinities”, seems to strike gold. The following are the noted paragraphs from this thick chapter:

“It may be said that all the changes that occur in the so-called material world are the result of chemical affinity; and in like manner that all the changes that occur in so-called higher life, are generally speaking the result of the attraction of the one sex for the other. Not a brick would be made, nor plank sawed, nor mortar mixed, nor shingle cut, not tent pitched, nor wheel turned, nor axle oiled, nor fire built, nor exertion seen, nor hope expressed, were it not for the fact of the mutual longing of the sexes for each other. Analyze thoroughly human activities, and you will find that the final cause of all endeavor is the realization of those relations to which the sexual instinct is ever turning.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (pg. 257)

The following is a comparison of the strength of the respective bonding affinities between oxygen and hydrogen as compared to nitrogen to human marriages held-together unwillingly:

“We often hear today of family ties severed because of the appearance in the family circle of ‘affinities’; and although such severance must frequently give pain to the party forsaken, and bring evil to the progeny, if there be such, it nevertheless remains a fact that where freedom of action is permissible such severance is unavoidable. This is paralleled in the case of the atoms.

Oxygen has a stronger affinity for hydrogen than for nitrogen. Indeed it seems almost to hate the latter, even though by force of circumstances united with it. We often see this condition manifested in family life. Men and women are driven frequently to marry by the force of circumstances, men because of their passions, women for the sake of having a home. Seldom is the tie, thus formed, willingly preserved unbroken.

In general, formed without thought, or for an unworthy end, the tie is snapped asunder, and the parties to it assume their former individual liberty. It cannot be denied that as one element has greater attraction for one than for another; so one man or woman may have greater attraction for one person of the opposite sex than for another; nor can it be denied that when this attraction, this natural inclination, is fully satisfied or fully reciprocated, the union is more agreeable and lasting.

Artificial rules, legal restraint, may force compliance with undesired conditions, or hold together those unwillingly bound or hating their yoke; but only nature can keep the opposite sexes willingly, gladly, and permanently united. The mutual love of the opposite sexes is rational and proper, as it is also the strongest and most irrepressible of all animal forces.”

Bray model 6
Bray’s oxygen=nitrogen + hydrogen comparison to unwilled married couple plus single person, from his §19: “Atomic and Human Affinities” (pgs. 258-59), wherein, in short, he states that oxygen O bonded to nitrogen N, i.e. nitric oxide NO, owing to “circumstances” could be similar to a “man and woman driven to marry by the force of circumstances”, in which “seldom is the tie, thus formed, willingly preserved unbroken”, according to which if hydrogen H, which has a “stronger affinity for oxygen than for nitrogen”, is introduced into the system, the laws of force will prevail, and oxygen (or male A) will detach from nitrogen (or female B) and attach to hydrogen (or female C). In modern terms, nitrogen oxide reacts with hydrogen to form nitrogen and water vapor, via the following reaction: (Ѻ)

2NO(g) + 2H2(g) → N2(g) +2H2O(g)

Thus, Bray says, “If three persons stand side by side, two married and the third single, the fact that two are wedded will not prevent them disregarding their wedlock, if the third party has the natural affinity requisite for separating them, provided that the parties are allowed complete freedom of action.”
The following is a ripe statement on both thought experiment and regards terminology:

“We have said that all earthly changes and developments are the results of the mutual love of the sexes; but we can with equal certainty affirm that all chemical changes occurring in the world are the result of chemical affinity. In this case we use a word to express atomic attraction that sometimes straying lovers use to express the object of their illicit longings. That the word should be admissible in the one activity and forbidden in the other, is not natural to say the least.

If three persons stand side by side, two married and the third single, the fact that two are wedded will not prevent them disregarding their wedlock, if the third party has the natural affinity requisite for separating them, provided that the parties are allowed complete freedom of action.”

The scenario that plays out in Dr. Zhivago (1965) seems to be the classic example of what Bray is getting at:
Dr. Zhivago (Bray labeled)
Bray then talks about "liberty of choice", as follows:

“Indeed, I am convinced from my knowledge of men and women, based on very extensive observations, and very wide relations, that were complete liberty of choice allowed in their intercourse one with another, no more than one in ten of those married would choose to continue their former relations rather than select new companions.”

Next, humans, he says, may make laws as they please, but such laws can only suppress nature so far:

“Think as we may, make what laws we please, we may suppress nature in these matters; but feelings repressed, and eruptive longings we cannot altogether hide, however much we would escape censure, or spare the feelings of others.

This brings to mind the fall of communism; forced marriages; slavery; homosexual illegality; among others. Next we get into ripe love terminology upgrade, as follows:

“Similar forces to those that thus bring together the opposite sexes are everywhere evident and acting in the so-called material world, and in the judgment of the writer, equally natural and all-conquering. In our conceit and blindness we call the one force ‘love’, and the other force ‘affinity’; but mere alteration of words cannot alter the fact that the two words are the expression of the same force in nature.”

In this sense, we would say that "love", in colloquial terminology, equates to positive affinity (or negative Gibbs energy change) in scientific terminology, and that "hate", likewise, corresponds to negative affinity (or positive Gibbs energy change), in scientific terms, i.e. physicochemcially-neutral language.

Love | Terminology reform
The following is Bray’s discourse on love

“If we ask what is love, we can answer only as we answer the question what is chemical affinity. In the former case it is the mutual attraction and longings of the opposite sexes of human adults, which when according to nature bring them and hold them together; in the latter case it is the mutual attraction (and probably longings) of atoms, which being natural unites, and binds them together with the strongest ties known to natural law. Whatever mystery is involved in the one case, is in like manner involved in the other.”

Prior to this, to note, he defines hate as a “repelling force”. Then, to address skeptics, he states the following:

“The skeptic may say, ‘But in man and woman there are feeling and consciousness, while in the case of atomic affinity there is neither.’ I answer, you speak carelessly, unscientifically, without knowledge. How do you know there is no feeling nor consciousness with the atoms? Have you asked them?”

This, of course, is the ‘extrapolate down’ objection intermixed with unbridgeable gap notions. Bray then, humorously, employs the ‘extrapolate up’ rebuttal, as follows:

“Have you been able to make yourself one of them in order to study their modes and activities, as sometimes man does, when trying to learn of the habits and manners of obscure and less civilized tribes? Has the atom not the same right to deny that man has either consciousness or feeling, because it has never witnessed its exhibition?”

This, firstly, reminds of how many in the 1890s argued, via anthropomorphism, that animals, plants, and protoplasmic substances moved towards a light source because of “curiosity”; which is why in 1888 Jacques Loeb, in his “The Orientation of Animals to Light”, introduced his tropism theory or forced movement theory of action to remedy or disprove these anthropomorphic arguments. [7]

This, secondly, gets into the premise that the correct solution, as Charles Sherrington pointed out, is to deanthropomorphize any and all baseless notions about ourselves, e.g. feelings and consciousness, rather than to continue to anthropomorphize atoms and molecules with human-based conceptions; which, in short, is what is called “deanthropomorphic terminology reform”, some of which Bray interjects on (see: love terminology upgrades), the majority of which amounts to perceptual confusion, similar to the way we say, in colloquial speak, “sun set” or “sun rise”, even though, technically, say if asked on a test, we would say that this is flat earth language, and employ terms that refer to earth surface rotation “towards” and “away” from the sun, respectively.

God | Intelligent force
The following seems to be Bray's "god as force" (or god via force) model:

“As bodies they act and interact, pass and repass, attract and repell, shun the society of some and seek that of others; and they build up, and as far as mortal man can know, keep in order the system to which they belong, as if their little cosmos were presided over, as we believe it is, by intelligent forces [see: higher power].”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (pg. 203)

(add)

Education
In 1862, Bray, at age 16, came to America; matriculated and in 1871 did first years work in Northwestern University, and in 1875 completed his BA at the University of Toronto. In 1877, Deacon became a priest and in 1879 began preaching in various churches in America. In this period, he completed theological degrees, namely: 1878, LL.B., 1883: B.D., Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N.J., 1876; LL.B., Univ. of Michigan, 1883. In 1878, Bray was the main priest of Union Colony of Colorado, but sometime thereafter, circa 1880, he left the colony forcibly or by his own accord, owing to the radicalness of his religious views. [6] In circa 1883, Bray was deposed from the Church for his monism writings. In 1885, Bray completed his LLD at the University of Toronto, and his MD in 1902 at the Hahnemann Medical College, Chicago, specializing in homeopathy. (Ѻ)

In 1910, Bray, in his “Preface”, to The Living Universe, compares himself to Socrates, and states that he obtained a total of six degrees to justify the polymath-geared venture into the subject at hand:

“It is not at all probable that the author will ever write another book; nor would he be inclined to publish this, did he not feel that he owes it to the world. Socrates told the court that he was moved by the indwelling spirit to teach as he had taught; and thousands of others before and since have felt compelled to give utterance to thoughts not altogether originating in themselves. Without professing to have said the final word on the subjects concerning which the arguments and theories in this book are made, being a hard student and having been one all his life, and in addition to his natural love of study and assiduity in prosecuting it, having had a broader and more varied experience than but a few of his kind, and completed full courses in medicine, law, divinity, science and arts, and philosophy, receiving no less than six degrees from such well-known institutions of learning as Victoria University, Toronto University, Michigan University, Drew Theological School, and Hahnemann Medical College, Chicago, the author feels he is, and believers that the reader should consider him, comparatively well conversant with the subjects here investigated; and he does not doubt that the conclusions drawn from his life's studies and experience, and carefully set down in these pages, will stand the test of all true scholarship of the present, and be increasingly approved in the future.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (Preface, pgs. 5-6)

Here we compare this credentiality statement to that of George Scott who, like Bray, cites Socrates and monism, and states similarly that the problem, i.e. "monism degree problem" (or credentiality problem), requires, not six, but 7-8 degrees, at the graduate school level, one degree being in physical chemistry (or equivalent):

“Since my name is not Socrates or Einstein and I hold only one of the seven or eight PhD degrees this problem requires, readers are quite justified in questioning my qualifications to testify as such a multidisciplinary expert.”
George Scott (1985), mini-introduction (pg. viii) to Atoms of the Living Flame

(add)

Quotes | Employed
The following are other quotes employed:

“The universe has its definite store of force which works in it under ever varying forms; is indestructible, not to be increased, everlasting and unchangeable like matter itself.”
Hermann Helmholtz (c.1870), in: The Living Universe (pg. 14)

“The heat annually received on each square foot of the earth’s surface, if employed in a perfect heat engine, would hoist sixty tons to the height of a mile.”
— Charles Young (1889), General Astronomy (pg. 218); in: The Living Universe (pgs. 16-17)

Fate | Chance
The following are Bray quotes on fate and or chance:

“The scientist does not behold in nature what the poet does. He sees no blind chance, no miracles, no fate, unless you call perfection by that name.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (pg. 216)

“Neither fate nor chance is found, but everywhere law and harmony, that make the mighty cosmos one.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (pg. 226)

(add)

Term | Analysis
See main: Social Newton term analysis
The following, noting Bray’s pre 1923 Lewis-mediated free energy supplantation of affinity terminology switch position, shows the key term usage count:

Scientific terms
Religious termsElements
Metaphysical
Force (Ѻ) | 100+
Matter (Ѻ) | 100+
Atom (Ѻ) | 78+
Work (Ѻ) | 75+
Motion (Ѻ) | 61+
Molecule (Ѻ) | 46+
Heat (Ѻ) | 45+
Chemical (Ѻ) | 31+
Energy (Ѻ) | 30+
Affinity (Ѻ) | 14+
Affinities (Ѻ) | 10+
Electricity (Ѻ) | 5+
Mechanical (Ѻ) | 5+
Bond (Ѻ) | 1+
Life (Ѻ) | 100+
God (Ѻ) | 82+
Death (Ѻ) | 73+
Soul (Ѻ) | 52+
Spirit (Ѻ) | 22+
Hydrogen (Ѻ) | 38+
Iron (Ѻ) | 23+
Oxygen (Ѻ) | 20+
Carbon (Ѻ) | 13+
Sulphur (Ѻ) | 8+
Nitrogen (Ѻ) | 7+
Phosphorus (Ѻ) | 4+
Calcium (Ѻ) | 3+
etc.
Love (Ѻ) | 29+
Ether (Ѻ) | 22+
Hate (Ѻ) | 4+

_________________
______________
__________________
______________
The terms: "thermodynamics", "entropy", and "reaction", to note, are not employed by Bray.

Quotes | On
The following are quotes on Bray:

“It will no doubt be interesting to others besides Episcopalians to know that Henry Bray has become an author since leaving here and of the most pronounced radical type. His great ability and still greater aggressiveness will be remembered. When here he was a high-church-man of the narrowest type. The apostolic succession of priests, or rather bishops, of the English church was a position he was ready to defend against all comers. But he was well read in both modern science and philosophy. These seem at length to have got the better of his Athanasian theology, and historical criticism has upset his former views upon miracles and the Christian evidences. It appears that he is now out of the church, whether driven out or gone of his own accord we are not informed. Still the church that can still keep within its communion and priesthood Heber Newton ought to have a place for Henry Truro Bray if he wished to remain.”
— David Boyd (1890), A History of Greeley and the Union Colony of Colorado [5]

“Until 1888, Henry Bray imposed his theological views, which were not favorably accepted by the congregation. However, before he departed, he married Miss Mary Wormald, a member of the Boonville parish. Several years later he asked the bishop to depose him because his views were no longer in accordance with the teachings of the Episcopal Church.”
— Anon (c.1890), "Memorabilia of Cooper County" [6]

Quote | By
The following are quotes by Bray:

“One should [strive to] distinguish true riches from mere possessions, whether of gold or of cattle on a thousand hills, who although born onward by their fellows in the latter’s mad rush and senseless strife for position, fame, or wealth, never cease to point out the shadowy, delusive, and debasing nature of that.”
— Henry Bray (1910) “Dedication”, in The Living Universe (pg. 3)

“As in temperate zones civilization best flourishes, so chemical union is most active with no extremes of temperature. With excessive heat atomic individuality is excessively asserted; with excessive cold the atomic freedom is almost swallowed up in its servile subjection to molecular power.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 186)

“Without any doubt death is a part of the order of nature, and therefore a real good, whether it be the end of man's individuality, his metempsychosis, his change into some other form of being, or his entrance, as some believe, into a glorious immortality.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (§8: Atomic and Molecular Worlds, pg. 187)

“The thinking man is not unfrequently moved with a burning desire to know what nature has in store for him.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (pg. 213)

Aristotle, the greatest of all minds, tells us that it is through wonder men begin to philosophize, at first trying to unfold the more readily explicable, afterwards proceeding to the more difficult: the philosopher may therefore be considered a wise fool; for he who wonders at things, finding himself at a loss to explain the phenomena, is called ignorant.”
— Henry Bray (1910), The Living Universe (pg. 351)

References
1. Bray, Henry T. (1910). The Living Universe (rippling brook, pg. 159; §19: Atomic and Human Affinities, pgs. 257-65; Goethe, 4+ pgs; disposed, pg. 176). Truro Publishing Co., 1920.
2. Henry Truro Bray (1846-1922) – FindAGrave.com.
3. Anon. (date). Who Was Who in America (Bray (Thomas) Henry Truro, author). Volume 1, pg. 133.
4. (a) Bray, Henry T. (1888). Essays on God and Man: or a Philosophical Inquiry into the Principles of Religion (common to both, pgs. 211-12). Nixon-Jones Printing.
(b) Bray, Henry T. (1910). The Living Universe (disposed, pg. 176). Truro Publishing Co, 1920.
5. (a) Boyd, David. (1890). A History of Greeley and the Union Colony of Colorado (pgs. 291-92). Greeley Tribune Press.
(b) Thomas Henry Truro Bray (1846-1922) – Adupree.com.
6. (a) Anon. (c.1890). "Memorabilia of Cooper County", Christ's Church Episcopal, 4th and Vine Streets, Boonville, Missouri.
(b) Thomas Henry Truro Bray (1846-1922) – Adupree.com.
7. Loeb, Jacques. (1888). “The Orientation of Animals to Light” (“Die Orientierung der Tiere gegen das Licht”), Sitzngsb. Wurzb. Physik.-md. Ges.

Further reading

● Bray, Henry. (1887). A Dissertation on Theism: On the Knowability of God.
● Bray, Henry. (1897). Reason and Dogma: Footprints of a Soul. Truro Publishing Co.
● Bray, Henry. (1897). Essays on God and Man: Philosophical Inquiry Into the Principles of Religion. Truro Publishing Co.

External links
Henry Truro Bray – Genealogy.com.

TDics icon ns