192 
inorganic world liave certain forces bound up with them ; but the question is, 
whether that which we call vitality is a different force bound up in us, and 
which we cannot obtain from that which is not vital. The question is 
whether there is any difference whatever between the organic and the in- 
organic world. If we take the views of Professor Huxley and Dr. Odling on 
life, we are bound to maintain that there is no such thing as life at all, for 
vitality and life express the same thing, and that therefore it is altogether 
absurd to make the distinction between organic and inorganic bodies ; that an 
organic body is that which possesses life, while an inorganic body is that 
which does not. We are told that the life in an inorganic body is nothing 
but the action of inorganic forces. But still a great deal of the effect of which 
I have spoken lies inherently in the ideas which we have of force ; and here I 
must say that I venture very humbly to differ from Mr. Brooke in his illus- 
tration of force. I know it is the popular illustration which is given by 
many in the present day, and which is considered philosophical ; but when 
we use words in natural philosophy, before we can apply them to the pur- 
poses of mathematical demonstration, we have to give them a strictly defined 
meaning. Now I complain that the illustration drawn from the action of 
the cannon-ball and the gunpowder — that the gunpowder possesses force, and 
that the cannon-ball does not— differs altogether from the definition of force 
in natural philosophy. The old-fashioned definition of force was, whatever 
was capable of producing or had a tendency to produce motion in matter was 
force. The thing moved was matter ; the thing that moved it was force ; 
and there were as many different forces in nature as there were kinds of 
matter. We know there are several different forms of matter, which chemists 
can analyze in detail, and dissociate- and combine, and that which combines 
or unites these things we call force, because it moves those material particles 
and re-arranges them. The force is that which moves the particles of matter 
and arranges them anew. There are two things in nature which present 
themselves to our analytical investigation, two distinct bodies, the one called 
inorganic or dead bodies, and the other a different series of bodies, called 
living bodies. Now is there any distinction between a living and a dead 
body ? Here we may enlarge our terms, and force may mean power. Some- 
times you may have something which you cannot exactly call force, but 
which is power, and I will give you an illustration of this to make it clear. 
I differ in regard to the illustration of the cannon-ball, because when the 
ball leaves the gun and goes against a hard body, it does produce motion, 
and I do not call that energy, I call it force. It may be convenient to 
introduce a new term, but do not let us confound that with our old defini- 
tion, force. I have seen a wonderful piece of machinery which was invented 
by a man named Schutz, and which is now in Somerset House — a calculating 
machine. No doubt its originator, though not actually its parent, is the 
celebrated Mr. Babbage. This machine was made by a man who was only 
aware that Mr. Babbage was engaged in making a machine that should 
calculate logarithms and different things that required extensive powers of 
calculation, and which should do what the human brain could not do — go on 
