54 PROF. LIONEL 8. BEALE, F.R.C.P., F.R.S., ON VITALITY. 
life a control over the materials, which control is lost the 
moment the matter ceases to live. This must be admitted. 
What power this something actually is, what it ought to be 
called, is another matter. Most of the German authorities 
now seem to prefer to called it “energy”; but then they use 
the word “energy” as some distinguished scientific philo- 
sophers use some other words—in more than one sense. It 
is this varied use of words and vague definition which is 
really one of the greatest difficulties in discussing some of 
the most elementary scientific questions. One of our greatest 
philosophers has exposed himself to this accusation—I mean 
Herbert Spencer. Were one driven to do so, one could pick 
out not a few passages in which a word is used in one 
particular way, and a little farther on the same word is used 
in a totally different sense. Especially is this the case with 
respect to the words “organic” and “ growth.” The first will 
include living and dead matter, and the second is made to 
include lifeless aggregation as well as living growth. Here I 
think no compromise is possible. The two opposite views 
as to vitality—one attributing it to mechanical agency and 
chemical and physical changes—the other referring all vital 
phenomena to some force or power which cannot be isolated, 
estimated, measured, or weighed, and which is so to say not 
material, not a necessary property of any form of non-living 
matter. This power 3s a factor which acts on matter, but it 
does not come from matter. It is an agency which ceases to 
act when living matter dies. 'These two views, the physical and 
the vital view, are irreconcilable. They cannot both be true. 
One must yield. Whether it shall yield now, or ten years or 
a hundred years hence, it is not possible to say; but one of 
these two views must be wrong—not only erroneous, but 
absolutely untenable. I have no objection whatever to 
admit that [am wrong; for I am old and ready to admit my 
mistakes as soon as they are made clear, but let them be 
proved and then exposed. Those who differ from me, as 
many do differ and have differed for more than forty years, 
should clearly express thei points of difference as regards 
broad principles, and reply to the many “appeals” I have 
made. (Applause.) 
In the Spectator of this week there is an interesting 
paper on what the author calls “The Uses of Agnosticism.” 
It is a very curious communication, and I would recommend 
all interested in this discussion to look at it. I must not, of 
course, enter into a consideration of all that is said, for it 
