SP0XTA2TE0US OEXERATIOX. 



439 



in regard to their amenability to the destructive 

 influence of heat, from all visible forms of living 

 matter of similar nature. Yet these are the two 

 alternatives which have to be considered by those 

 who seek to interpret the experiments above re- 

 ferred to. It is not safe in such a question to lean 

 too strongly upon analogy, and even if it were, it 

 so happeus, as I have elsewhere shown, that the 

 arguments from analogy are very evenly balanced 

 in their bearing upon these opposite views. 1 



Should it be asked what warrant there is for 

 supposing that living particles ever could come 

 into being by an independent birth from fluids, 

 somewhat after the fashion of incipient crystals, 

 I would reply that the general kinship between 

 living and not-living matter is freely admitted by 

 men of science at the present day, as the follow- 

 ing quotation may suffice to indicate. Prof. Hux- 

 ley says: 8 " It is not probable that there is any 

 real difference in the nature of the molecular 

 forces which compel the carbonate of lime to as- 

 sume and retain the crystalline form, and those 

 which cause the albuminoid matter to move and 

 grow, select and form, and maintain its particles 

 in a state of incessant motion. The property of 

 crystallizing is to crystallizable matter what the 

 vital property is to albuminoid matter (proto- 

 plasm). The crystalline form corresponds to the 

 organic form, and its internal structure to tissue- 

 structure. Crystalline force being a property of 

 matter, vital force is but a property of matter." 



But the same inquirer may ask, Does anybody 

 go so far as to say that living matter ever has 

 come into being independently ? To which I can 

 only answer, It is the belief of our profoundest 

 thinkers and foremost men of science that such a 

 process did take place in the early history of this 

 planet. This is the declared belief of many, both 

 at home and abroad, of whom I will only men- 

 tion among ourselves the names of Herbert 

 Spencer and G. H. Lewes, together with those of 

 Charles Darwin and Prof. Huxley. And that it 

 maybe seen that this is a view shared in even by 

 a man who is notable for great caution and so- 

 briety in regard to the acceptance of mere fanci- 

 ful hypotheses, it will only be necessary to quote 

 from an address delivered last autumn before the 

 German Association of Naturalists and Physicians 

 by Prof. Virchow. After demurring to the pro- 

 mulgation of different doctrines which he re- 

 garded as unproved, Virchow says: 3 "Never- 

 theless, I admit that if we indeed want to 



1 " Evolution and the Origin of Life," 1874, pp. 50- 

 57, and 15-29. 



2 Fortnightly Review, February. 1669. 



3 See Mature, November 29, 1877, p. 98. 



form an idea how the first organic being could 

 have originated by itself, nothing remains but 

 to go back to spontaneous generation. This is 

 clear. If I do not want to suppose a creation- 

 theory, if I do not want to believe that a special 

 creator existed, who took the clod of clay and 

 blew his living breath into it, if I want to form 

 some conception in my own way, then I must 

 form it in the sense of generatio tequivoca." 1 



But does any one, other than Dr. Bastian, hold 

 that some such process as is here supposed 

 could have taken place more than once — that it 

 does take place even now ? This is a question 

 which an ingenuous reader may well put after 

 reading Prof. Tyndall's denunciation of my views 

 in the last number of this Review. To this, 

 again, I can only reply that there are such men — 

 men, too, who accupy an exalted position in the 

 world of science. As a botanist I can name M. 

 Trecul, and as a chemist M. Fremy, both of them 

 members of the Institute of France ; while in Italy 

 I can cite Prof. Cantoni, who holds the chair of 

 Physics at Pavia, as well as Prof. Oehl and Prof. 

 Leopoldo Maggi. There are others whom I might 

 mention, but it would be of little use, and instead 

 I will subjoin a quotation from one of our own 

 most eminent thinkers. As this is taken from a 

 work published only last summer, 1 its author may 

 be presumed to have been fully aware of the 

 major part of the evidence and reasoning of an 

 adverse kind which Prof. Tyndall has of late ad- 

 duced. Mr. G. H. Lewes writes (page 122) : " I 

 cannot see the evidence which would warrant the 

 belief that life originated solely in one micro- 

 scopic lump of protoplasm on one single point of 

 our earth's surface ; on the contrary, it is more 

 probable that from innumerable and separate 

 points of this teeming earth myriads of proto- 

 plasts sprang into existence whenever and wher- 

 ever the conditions of the formation of organized 

 substance were present. It is probable that this 

 has been incessantly going on, and that every day 

 new protoplasts appear, struggle for existence, and 

 serve as food for more highly-organized rivals." 



Such processes could not come within the 

 common knowledge of mankind. What can or- 

 dinary persons know on the question whether 

 specks of living matter less than tttsWu °f an 

 inch in diameter are constantly coming within 

 visible limits after an independent birth from 

 fluids ? Yet this supposition has been spoken of 



1 Virchow distinctly states, however, that in his* 

 opinion the occurrence of any such process at the 

 present day has never been proved. 



a "The Physical Basis of Mind," by G. H. Lewes, 

 1877. 



