247 
be dealt with. Science is the ally of real theology and the handmaid of 
philosophy and truth, and we must be careful not to rush in suddenly 
with contradiction of anything that may prove to be scientific truth ; but at 
the same time we are also careful, and we wish our scientific friends would 
be equally careful, in not adopting as scientific conclusions statements or 
theories which may be overturned to-morrow. We have had enough of that 
already. Some people are over-hasty, but we desire to be cautious, because 
we are lovers of truth. I am sure we shall all profit by the exact and con- 
siderate essay of Mr. Brooke, and I think we shall find some admirable 
corrective thoughts in the speech of Mr. Moore. For my own part I have 
a hankering after Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great, who I think may 
yet put us right. 
The Chairman. — I hope some gentleman will direct his attention to that 
part of Mr. Brooke’s essay which deals with the definition of “ force ” and 
“ energy.” 
Mr. A. Y. Newton. — I quite agree with Mr. Moore that “ conservation of 
energy” is a most unfortunate expression ; if we employ in scientific inves- 
tigations words that are used in common parlance, I cannot help thinking 
that we should use them according to the meaning they have in common 
parlance. I think that if a word has taken a new meaning, a writer should 
adopt that meaning in his writings. There is the • word “ prevent,” for 
instance, which has two distinct and quite opposite meanings ; and here in 
this paper we have “ energy” and “ force ” defined in three ways. 
Mr. Brooke.— I quote two or three, but I only give one myself. 
Mr. Newton. — Mr. Brooke’s definition comes to this, that “force” is action 
between particles of matter, by which they are either attracted towards or 
repelled from each other.” That may be a very good definition, but according 
to my view force is really not action — it is something quite distinct from it, 
or at all events it may be. I think there is force in gunpowder while it 
lies quiescent, and there is active force when it is exploding. It would 
be as well to refer to what are the ordinary definitions of these words. 
Dr. Johnson gives a number of definitions of force, such as “ strength, might, 
active power,” and so on. Now it seems to me that force is or may be a 
quiescent power. Dr. Johnson gives, as a definition of energy, “ power 
not exerted in action,” so that we get a confusion here which it is very 
desirable to have cleared up. If energy be “ power not exerted in action,” 
then Mr. Brooke’s use of “ energy ” and the conservation of “ energy ” would 
certainly be correct ; and I cannot see any objection to it, for it would 
amount to precisely the same thing as that “ conservation of power,” of 
which Mr. Moore spoke. 
The Chairman. — This is Mr. Brooke’s definition : “ the power of doing 
work.” 
Mr. Newton. — Then that quite agrees with the definition I have quoted, 
and it seems to me to be precisely the same sense in which the word “ power ” 
is used by Mr. Moore. Therefore I cannot see any difference between him 
and Mr. Brooke. 
