deprived of its vitality is still protoplasm, it is axiomatically evident that vitality is not indispensable to protoplasm, and is therefore not a "property" of protoplasm.

7. But this question of Mr. Huxley's is further noticeable on account of the connection in which it is found; a connection highly significant in relation to its author's disclaimer of "materialism." In varying phrase, but always to the same effect, in three short consecutive sentences he thrice reiterates the question:

"What justification is there then for the assumption of the existence in the living matter of a something which has no representative or correlative in the not-living matter that gave rise to it? What better philosophic status has vitality than aquosity? And why should vitality hope for a better fate than the other itys which have disappeared since Martinus Scriblerus accounted for the operation of the meat-jack by its inherent meat-roasting quality, and scorned the materialism of those who explained the turning of the spit by a certain mechanism worked by the draught of the chimney?" 1

"This," replies Dr. Elam, "is very amusing -no one can be more so than Professor Huxley; -a little perception of facts and analogies would make it perfect. The answer is obvious, if answer is required. All these are machines

1 Fortnightly Review, February, 1869, p. 140.

which man has made, and can again make by the use of well-known forces and material which he can combine at will; it is not therefore necessary to hypothecate any other force or principle. When man can make any, even the simplest organism, out of inorganic matter, then shall we be compelled to acknowledge that chemical and other forces are sufficient, and that the hypothesis of a vital principle has had its day and may cease to be. To Professor Huxley's illustration I will respond seriously when he has demonstrated to me that meat-jacks have been developed from the beginning of time only and exclusively under the immediate contact and influence of pre-existing meat-jacks. Until then the analogy is scarcely close enough to need refutation or discussion." 1

8. Mr. Huxley, as above cited, refuses to recognise the distinction between dead protoplasm and that which lives. Other authorities however, and especially the Germans who have led the way in this investigation, say expressly that whether the same elements are to be referred to the protoplasmic cells equally after death as before it is a matter entirely unknown. While this is so it is evident that Mr. Huxley's

1 Contemporary Review, September, 1876, p. 558 et seq.

chemical analysis of dead protoplasm cannot be regarded as decisive for that which is not dead. And yet, throughout his whole argument, he builds on this same chemical analysis as if it were decisive. Thus he speaks of mutton as "once the living protoplasm," now the "same matter altered by death" and cookery, but yet as not being by these alterations rendered "incompetent to resume its old functions as matter of life."1 He speaks of its being subjected to "subtle influences" subtle influences" which "will convert the dead protoplasm into the living protoplasm "—which will "raise the complex substance of dead protoplasm to the higher power, as one may say, of living protoplasm." 2 In all this, as throughout, when he speaks of dead matter of life and living matter of life, not only is there no hint of any difference in chemical constitution, or in "arrangement of molecules," between the dead and the living, but when, in anticipation of such difference, he alludes to it at all, it is only to pronounce it "frivolous." "3

So be it. Let the identity of protoplasm, "living or dead," as assumed by Mr. Huxley,

1 Fortnightly Review, February, 1869, p. 137.

2 Ibid., p. 138.

3 Ibid., p. 135.

be at least for the moment, and for the sake of the argument--conceded. What then? The properties of protoplasm, as we have seen, are altogether dependent upon the arrangement of its constituent atoms. But protoplasm in one of these conditions (ie., dead) manifests passive properties only; while, in the opposite condition, without any change, i.e., any known or knowable change, in its chemical properties or molecular arrangement,-we find it exercising a vast variety of active properties, assimilation, contraction, reproduction; not to mention thought, feeling, and will. Here then we have an effect, or rather a whole train of effects most marvellous,-without a cause, a conclusion that the most enthusiastic Evolutionist would hesitate to pronounce in "general harmony with scientific thought."1 From this impossible, and yet inevitable conclusion there is no possible escape except (1) by hypothecating a change, mechanical or chemical, of which, by Professor Huxley's own confession, we can have no possible knowledge, and on which therefore "we have no right to speculate;"

2

1 "Belfast, Address," ut sup., p. 58 : The strength of in its general

the doctrine of evolution consists harmony with scientific thought." 2 Fortnightly Review.

or (2) by confessing that the "subtle influences" invoked by Mr. Huxley to eke out the deficiencies of protoplasmic chemistry are nothing else than-under another name-that very same vital force or vital principle in which it is now so unfashionable and so unscientific to believe.1

9. In truth, however, the fulcrum on which Mr. Huxley's protoplasmic materialism rests is a single inference from a chemical analogy. But analogy, which is never identity, though often mistaken for it, is apt to betray. The difference which it covers may be essential, while the likeness it reveals may be inessential -as far as the conclusion is concerned. The analogy to which Mr. Huxley trusts has two references one to chemical composition, and one to a certain stimulus that determines it. In both of these the analogy fails: in both it can only seem to succeed by discounting the elements of difference that still subsist.

It cannot be denied that protoplasm is a chemical substance. It cannot be denied that protoplasm is a physical substance. Both physically and chemically, water (as a compound of hydrogen, and oxygen) and protoplasm (as

1 Dr. Elam's "Automatism and Evolution" (ut sup.), p. 560.