"perhaps it would not yet be safe to say that all forms," etc. Nay, not only does he directly say that "it is by no means his intention to suggest that there is no difference between the lowest plant and the highest, or between plants and animals," but he directly proves what he says, for he demonstrates in plants and animals an essential difference of power. Plants can assimilate inorganic matters, not, etc.

animals

can

18. "Mr. Huxley's ideas as to the composition of protoplasm have already been noticed, and it has been shown that they are clearly opposed to the known facts of science. Here a simple

alternative presents itself; either Mr. Huxley is familiar with the elementary facts of organic chemistry, in which case he would be aware of the impossibility of such a composition; or he is not so, on which supposition it was at least indiscreet to found an important practical doctrine like that of human automatism on a purely fanciful chemical theory. Which alternative is to be adopted may perhaps receive some illustration from a parallel passage in the essay 'On the Formation of Coal,"1

1 "Critiques and Addresses," pp. 109, 110.

L

where, referring to the burning of coal, it is said:

"Heat comes out of it, light comes out of it, and if we could gather together all that goes up the chimney, and all that remains in the grate of a thoroughly-burnt coal-fire, we should find ourselves in possession of a quantity of carbonic acid, water, ammonia, and mineral matters, exactly equal in weight to the coal! '

"It requires but the most elementary acquaintance with the subject to recognise that the 'quantity' of these products would be at least twice, probably thrice, as great as the original weight of the coal. A due consideration and comparison of these facts will enable the reader to estimate at its true value the science from which such stupendous consequences are so confidently deduced."1

19. "How such doctrines came to be received can only be accounted for in Professor Huxley's own words when treating on some other antagonistic 'teaching,' which he says was only 'tolerable on account of the ignorance of those by whom it was accepted.' Referring to some anatomical question, he says further that 'it would, in fact, be unworthy of serious refutation,

1 Dr. Elam: "Automatism and Evolution;" Contemporary Review, October, 1876, pp. 729, 730.

except for the general and natural belief that deliberate and reiterated assertions must have some foundation.'1 It is by this time tolerably clear that Professor Huxley's 'Chemistry of Life' has no foundation except that of 'deliberate and reiterated assertion.'

But "if such be the case with the chemistry, what is to be said for the argument founded upon it, or attached to it-if, indeed, argument it can be called?" It has now been tried, and found wanting, in every particular. It is condemned by its own admissions. It is condemned by the magnitude of its assumptions. It is condemned by its antagonism to notorious facts, and its violation of established principles. And the sentence which has followed condemnation is not less just than severe :—

"I cannot more appropriately conclude this notice of the doctrine of 'The Physical Basis of Life,' than with an extract from the author's own anthology of criticism, where, speaking of the theory of creation, he says:

“That such verbal hocus-pocus should be received as

1 "Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," p. 85. 2 Dr. Elam: Contemporary Review, September, 1876, P. 555.

• Professor Huxley's "Lay Sermons,” p. 285.

science will one day be regarded as evidence of the low state of intelligence in the nineteenth century, just as we amuse ourselves with the phraseology about nature's abhorrence of a vacuum, wherewith Torricelli's compatriots were satisfied to explain the rise of water in a pump.'"

1 Dr. Elam: Contemporary Review, October, 1876: p. 732.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE THREE BEGINNINGS.

"GIVE me matter," said Kant, "and I will explain the formation of a world; but give me matter only, and I cannot explain the formation of a caterpillar." This dictum is widely different from that of Professor Tyndall, who discerns in matter alone "the promise and potency of all terrestrial life." To the same effect is his eulogium on the Italian philosopher, Giordano Bruno, of whom he tells us1 that "he came to the conclusion that Nature in her productions does not imitate the technic of man. Her process is one of unravelling and unfolding. The infinity of forms under which matter appears were not imposed upon it by an external artificer; by its own intrinsic force and virtue it brings these forms forth. Matter is not the mere naked, empty capacity which philosophers have pictured her to be, but the universal

1 "Belfast Address," pp. 19, 20.