The points involved in it are two:-First, the introduction of Life. Second, the manifestations of Mind. As to the former of these, Professor Huxley himself declares that—

7. "The present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the notliving." Professor Haeckel admits that there is nothing in chemistry that can produce life. That chemistry cannot bridge the colossal chasm between the living and the not-living. That it cannot explain how inorganic is transmuted into organic matter. That "most naturalists, even at the present day, are inclined to give up the attempt at natural explanation 'of the origin of life,' and to take refuge in the miracle of inconceivable creation." 2 In the words of one of them, "We have given up the idea that we can make things grow." Or, to take but one instance more, the final sentence of Du Bois Reymond,-" It is futile to attempt by chemistry to bridge the chasm between the living and the not-living."

8. Futile as is the attempt however, Professor Huxley has shown himself equal to it. In his most deliberate utterance he tells us that—

1 Encycl. Brit., Art. "Biology."

2 "History of Creation,” vol. i. p. 327.

"A mass of living protoplasm is simply a molecular machine of great complexity, the total results of the working of which, or its vital phenomena, depend, on the one hand, on its construction, and on the other, upon the energy supplied to it; and to speak of 'vitality' as anything but the name of a series of operations, is as if one should talk of the horologity of a clock."1

This oracular deliverance is worthy of the most careful consideration, not less from its own merits than from the celebrity of its author. From it we learn that a "living" thing is "a machine;""simply" a machine. "The results of the working of" this machine-Milton's "Paradise Lost," for example; or Shakspere's Plays; Galileo and Kepler, Newton and Pascal, Socrates and Savonarola, Stephenson and Edison, Turner and Ruskin, "the total results"-are due to two sources. The first of these is "its construction;" the second, is "the energy supplied to it."

Since, however, to our instructor not less than to ourselves, the "construction" of "a mass of living protoplasm" is an unfathomable secret, of which, notwithstanding his high attainments, even he is profoundly ignorant; and since "the energy supplied to it" remains now, as ever, an absolutely unknown quantity; it might

1

1 Prof. Huxley, Encyc. Brit., Art. " Biology," 1875.

perhaps have been more candid, as it would certainly have been less misleading, if it had been said at once, and without ambiguous circumlocution, that "its vital phenomena depend" on something of which nothing is known.

It is Prof. Huxley himself who tells us that the "lifeless compounds " carbonic acid, water, and ammonia, cannot combine-cannot, by any wit of man, be combined-so as to "give rise to the still more complex body, protoplasm," unless a principle of life presides over the operation. Unless under those auspices the combination never takes place. But when we ask, What is that principle of life? What is that presiding Power? We are told that there is no such thing; that "vitality" has no more real existence than "horologity;" and that we might as well speak of a "steam-engine principle," a "watch-principle," or a "railroadprinciple," as of a "vital principle," or vital force.

And yet, not even the scathing sarcasm of which Prof. Huxley is a master, can avail to conceal the fact that the analogies thus suggested fail in every particular. The power of a steam-engine is in no degree dependent on its connection with some antecedent steam-engine.

The perfection of a watch is not derived by contact from some other watch. But the perfection of vital movement, and the power of vital force are derived by contact, are dependent on connection with other, and pre-existing living bodies. Mr. Huxley tells us of something which he finds it convenient to call by the name of "subtle influences." And these "subtle influences," he says, "will convert the dead protoplasm into the living protoplasm;" will "raise the complex substance of dead protoplasm to the higher power, as one may say, of living protoplasm." What are these "subtle influences?" What else are they but vital force?

It is easy to talk of a living body as "a molecular machine," and to attribute "vital phenomena" to its "construction." But what of The

Constructor? It is easy to talk of "lifeless compounds" as the "constituents" of a living body. But then these lifeless compounds are "constituents" that do not constitute. They do not even constitute "The Physical Basis of Life." Still less do they constitute the energy of Life itself. "Let the matter be disguised or slurred over as it may, the fact remains that we are utterly unable to imitate vital affinity so far 1 Fortnightly Review for 1869, p. 138.

as to make a bit of material ready for its use, or even to make any definite substance that would have similar chemical relations." 1

Let it however be supposed, that Prof. Huxley's vaticination has been realized. Let it be assumed that some day "by the advance of molecular physics" the learned Professor will be able to show us how it is that the properties peculiar to water have resulted from the properties peculiar to the gases whose junction constitutes water; and similarly, how the characteristic properties of protoplasm have sprung from properties in the water, ammonia, and carbonic acid that have united to form protoplasm; even then, knowing all this, we should be as far as ever from the more recondite knowledge up to which it is expected to lead. For this knowledge leaves us as ignorant as before concerning that "supplied energy" of Life, without which no protoplasm is ever formed. "To extract the genesis of life from any data that completest acquaintance with the stages and processes of protoplasmic growth can furnish, is a truly hopeless problem. Given the plan of a house, with samples of its brick and mortar, to find the name and nationality of the householder, would be child's play in 1 Dr. Elam, "Automatism and Evolution."