has been supposed, or the molecules of dead matter, for no valid or intelligible reason that is assigned, are able to re-arrange themselves into living bodies, exactly such as can be demonstrated to be frequently produced in another way, I cannot understand how choice can be, even for a moment, doubtful." Having thus expressed himself, it was a little strange that Professor Huxley almost immediately afterwards forgot to inform his audience what "valid or intelligible reason" he was able to assign for the occurrence of that evolution of not-living matter into living protoplasm, in the remote past to which he alluded. A supernatural interposition of creative power would explain the presence of living things upon our earth, just as easily as a supernatural preservation of living matter from the destructive effects of heat would account for the presence of living organisms within certain experimental flasks. But Professor Huxley most inconsistently says that even in the face of scientific evidence concerning the destructive powers of heat upon living matter, he would rather explain the presence of organisms in certain flasks on the hypothesis of a (supernatural) preservation of germs, than believe in the otherwise proved occurrence of a present life-evolution similar to that which he assumes to have taken place in the past. He is willing to accept the supernatural in the present, though he declines to interpret the past by its aid. He

assumes this attitude because no "valid or intelligible reason" is assigned in explanation of life-evolution, a belief in which would render unnecessary any appeal to the supernatural in the present; though he himself postulates the occurrence of the same unexplained process in the past solely in order to avoid having recourse to the supernatural. Professor Huxley's position in reference to this question is very puzzling, and one cannot help wondering through what monochromatic glass he had been taking his observations (from his watch-tower) in order to come to the conclusion that "the present state of science" gives any sanction to such vacillations, or entitles him to appeal to a supernatural preservation of germs instead of trusting to the known uniformity of natural pheno

mena.

Sir William Thomson was certainly much more consistent. He too seemed inclined to explain the experiments of our own day by resorting to the hypothesis of a supernatural preservation of germs, and similarly he seems not unwilling to explain the original advent of Life upon this globe, by another assumed process of "contagion." He has resort neither to a creative hypothesis, nor to the hypothesis of a natural becoming of living matter, but, shelving the question of "origin" altogether, he suggests that our Earth may have become peopled with organic forms owing

to the advent upon it, in the remote past, of a mossgrown fragment from the ruins of another world." Sir William Thomson's hypothesis seems strangely improbable in itself, though it has, in comparison with the views of other distinguished authorities, the somewhat rare merit of being not inconsistent with his notions concerning the experiments of to-day. He does not reject the supernatural in the past, whilst resorting to it for the present-he resorts to it in the present and in the past alike, and curiously evades altogether the real problem as to the Origin of Life.

Since so little-or rather nothing-is said by Professor Huxley in support of his supposition that living matter does not originate in the present day, even though the process of origination is so closely akin to that of growth, and though the process of growth is taking place at every moment of our lives, in every region of the globe, and under the most varied conditions-amidst tropical heat and icy coldness, on mountain-tops and deep down in almost unfathomable ocean-beds, it seems only reasonable to suppose that he must have been influenced by some strong prepossessions. And so far as one can gather from his Presidential Address before the British Association, from which I have already quoted, he does appear to have been powerfully biased by theoretical considerations. One of these we shall now consider.

Much stress is laid by certain writers upon the fact that "the doctrine of spontaneous or equivocal generation has been chased successively to lower and lower stations in the world of organized beings as our means of investigation have improved.' So that, as another very eminent writer says, "if some apparent exceptions still exist they are of the lowest and simplest forms."+ And it is usually inferred from this fact that further knowledge and improved means of observation will prove these apparent exceptions to be no exceptions to the supposed general rule-omne vivum ex vivo. A consideration of this kind seems to have powerfully influenced Professor Huxley.

Much confusion exists in reference to this point, which needs to be removed. In the first place, it must be freely admitted that many ancient notions, dating from the time of Aristotle, on the subject of "Equivocal or Spontaneous Generation," as a mode of origin for large and complex organisms, were altogether crude and absurd. Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish (and Professor Huxley did so) between two meanings of the phrase which have often been confounded with one another-viz., be

* Prof. Lister, Introductory Lecture (University of Edinburgh), 1869, p. 12.

Mr. Justice Grove (Presidential Address), Rep. of Brit. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science, 1866, p. 71.

tween Heterogenesis, or the mere allotropic modification of already existing living matter, and Archebiosis, or the independent origination of living matter. Thirdly, it should be distinctly understood that those who strictly adhere to the Evolution Hypothesis could never believe in the origination of any but the "lowest and simplest" organic forms by a process of Archebiosis. So that the gradual driving of the question back as one possibly applicable to such organisms only, is just what the Evolutionist would have expected, and therefore the objection above indicated should have been quite pointless for Professor Huxley.

Molecular combinations giving rise to units of protoplasm far below the minimum visibile stage of our most powerful microscope, would represent those initial collocations by which alone living matter could come into being-though the invisible 'germs' thus initiated may afterwards appear as minutest visible specks which grow into Bacteria, Vibriones, or Torulæ. We may, therefore, be further permitted to remark that even if it were given to Professor Huxley to "look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time," he would be extremely unlikely to witness an " evolution of living protoplasm from not-living matter." At the most, he might see (that is, if equipped with a powerful microscope) only what he may