species. . . . The very conception of spontaneity is wholly incongruous with the conception of evolution. . . . No form of evolution, inorganic or organic, can be spontaneous; but in every instance the antecedent forces must be adequate in their kinds, and qualities, and distributions to work the observed effects. . . The supposed spontaneous generation habitually occurs in menstrua that contain either organic matter, or matter originally derived from organisms. By what kind of logic, then, is it inferable that organic life was initiated after a manner like that in which infusoria are said to be now spontaneously generated? Where, before life commenced, were the superior organisms from which these lowest organisms derived their organic matter?”*

THE FATAL SELF-CONTRADICTION.

Mr. Spencer perceives the fatal self-contradiction of admitting any spontaneity into a theory of evolution. But he fails to see that his own theory of eternal modifications of matter as the origin of life is subject to the same fatality; for what is life but spontaneity? These unscientific facts of life are terribly fatal to theories of evolution. Any beginning, either of life, or of the motion of the molecules, is contradictory to evolution.

But besides Prof. Tyndall's faulty logic, the theory is. in itself unscientific. The notion that the forces of matter could originate life is utterly unscientific. The spontaneous motion of the molecules of matter is alleged by Haeckel and Büchner as the origin of life. But what is. the origin of the motion of the molecules of matter? What started them to move? If the universe had been. eternally full of them, they could not move. Not one of them could budge a hair's-breadth. If it was only eternally half-full of them, they might possibly have moved; * Appleton's Journal, No. 18, p. 563, and No. 19, p. 548.

but having begun to move toward each other by gravitation in the beginning of eternity, they must have completed their course millions of millenniums ago, and must have been all crammed into one heap, stock-still for everNo matter how small you make your molecules, if they are matter, they have had length, breadth, and thickness, gravity and impenetrability; and they could no more move a hair's-breadth without a cause outside of themselves than the paving stones in the street.

more.

Then, again, we demand a reason for their motion. Why should decent inorganic molecules seek organization ? Why, after an eternity of contented well-to-do existence in gas and crystal lives, should they rush into the pollywog-breeding business, with all its risks and disappointments? Any respectable regular crystal ought to be ashamed of itself for becoming the father of sons capable of the absurdities of the evolutionists. Organization is on a plan, a purposed combination of parts for the benefit of the whole organism. Were the molecules of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon, which met to manufacture the first organism, animated by such a public spirit that each resolved to sink its own individ. ual existence for the common good, and, in the spirit of Marcus Curtius, leap fully armed into the yawning gulf separating life from death in the midst of the forum of the Capitol of evolution? But if no sufficient reason can be given for the very extraordinary and unparalleled conduct of the molecules which united to form the first organism; and if, as evolutionists allege, they had no reason, but just united for fun, no reason any better can be given for any of their successors' actions; and so all the world is only a big muddle, and the attempt to form a theory of evolution, or any other theory, can only be the spinning of a rope of sand.

But even should we attribute enough intelligence to

the molecules to design their confederation, or accept the theory that they came together by chance, as some of the ancient and modern evolutionists hold, still the question arises, Had they capital enough to go into the business of organization? Our evolutionists display their stock in trade, consisting of materials-oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and the like-as materials of protoplasm. All very good so far as it goes, but a brick pile is not a house; nor is a barrel of beef an ox. We need a great deal more than the materials of protoplasm to make life. All these are found in great abundance in a dead mule; but we want one alive and able to work. But the molecules have not the least idea how to give life to a dead mule, or to a dead molecule. There is no force in nature able to inspire life. On the contrary, all the forces of nature are antagonistic to life, and the struggle for existence, which Mr. Darwin so eloquently describes, is the struggle of life against the powers of nature. Every drop of water conveyed by a plant from the ground to the top of its leaf, every step or motion made by any animal, is a struggle against the force of gravitation. The laws of chemical affinity, appealed to as the great forces in evolving life, operate in exactly the contrary direction; they cause death and decomposition, when life ceases its resistance. The gastric juice will eat its way through the stomach which secreted it, when that stomach has ceased from the struggle of life. The very familiar illustration of the difficulty of preserving dead vegetables and meats attests the destructive power of the forces of matter if not counteracted by some superior intelligence. Mr. Spencer pompously announces the heat of the sun as the sufficient force originating all life. But the sun might shine on his solutions of smelling-salts to all eternity without producing the smallest fungus, unless the seeds were previously there. The forces of inorganic

matter can destroy, but cannot possibly impart or originate life.

Finally, the idea of the origin of life by the co-operation of the forces of inorganic matter is unthinkable. Dr. Huxley well says, that the first duty of a hypothesis is to be intelligible. I ask, Does Dr. Huxley, or any other doctor, understand what he says when he asserts that life was produced by the mechanical, or if he pleases, the chemical union of the molecules and their powers? All matter, whether found in mountains or in molecules, is extended, and divisible, and may be weighed and measured; and cannot lose these properties by any change of form, say into sensation. Let us try to conceive a pound weight of music! or an inch or two of eyesight! or an ounce of taste! or, since our spontaneous generationists are so fond of smelling-salts, by what chemistry would they transform a hogshead of them into the sensation of smell? What kind of acid and alkali will they unite to form the sense of hunger? Or what dual compound of chemistry enjoys the satisfaction of a good dinner? The properties and powers of inorganic matter are incommensurable with those of life. To say that vital actions are merely the results of the motions of the matter of the living body, is to utter words which have no intelligible meaning, unless one should suppose them an illustration of Dr. Huxley's theory-that they are mere protoplasm; protoplasm not yet informed with sense or reason. No conceivable amount of carbon, or oxygen, or hydrogen could produce an idea; nor can any known chemistry even analyze a proposition, much less construct a process of reasoning. To say that our Lord's Sermon on the Mount is simply the necessary result of the accidental meeting of four molecules of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon some millions of years ago-and the evolutionist must say just that-is to utter a statement which

all the evolutionists in the world could not make intelligible to any man of common sense. The notion of the origin of the world's life from some atoms of lifeless, inorganic matter is utterly unthinkable, self-contradictory, and absurd.

THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE.

Spontaneous generation then having been demonstrated to be false, impossible, and absurd, we fall back on the only alternative-creation. This is a supernatural act, and therefore inexplicable by science, which confines its investigations to nature; though at the last, as we have seen, it is compelled to admit a power beyond nature. But the idea of the creation of life by the Living God, though it transcends our reason, does not contradict it; seeing that it provides a sufficient cause for the proposed effect, and the only sufficient power and wisdom conceivable by man.

The Bible thus describes the creation of life by God, in the first chapter of Genesis: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and the herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life; and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the