M ONER A, AND THE PROBLEM OF LIFE. 63 1 



ent property of the living 1 substance. Do we as yet comprehend in 

 the same way the intimate modes of activity which constitute the prop- 

 erties appertaining to inorganic substances ? Is any kind of those 

 peculiar motions which form the scientific essence of the various forces 

 of inorganic Nature so strictly and deeply intelligible as has now be- 

 come that specific motion which forms the scientific essence of the 

 force of life ? 



Motion of any kind stands at present just in the same relation to 

 dead matter as that special mode of motion called contractility stood, 

 before this, to living matter. Mechanical motion, heat, electricity, etc., 

 are all qualities occultisimal, known only by the relative measurement 

 of the spaces of contraction and expansion which their manifesting 

 substrata occupy, or are thought to occupy. 



Comparative expansion and contraction are, and must be, the subject- 

 matter of all quantitative science. All intensities are made quantitative- 

 ly scientific by being " converted " into modes of space. Time itself is 

 thus measured, and the intensity of heat can be ascertained only by the 

 expansion and contraction of the manifesting substances. So with all. 

 Our modulatory theories are expressions of the same helpful makeshift ; 

 an expanding and contracting substratum. 



Motility is precisely such another expansion and contraction. But, 

 now, we know not merely the fact. We know, besides, bow it is 

 effected. We know something about the working of it within the 

 manifesting substance. By this qualitative penetration, this more sub- 

 stantial insight into natural operations, we have broken the consolidated 

 crust of mere superficial shiftings in space, and have forced a scientific 

 entry into deeper spheres of knowledge. 



The comparisons between motility and other modes of motion are 

 strictly appropriate. How much so cannot be adequately appreciated 

 until the origin and development of sensation have been traced ; of 

 which all modes of motion are, in the last instance, accurately corre- 

 sponding affections or reactions. 



And, now, what has become of this most vexed problem of prob- 

 lems the origin of life ? Is not protoplasm a chemical compound like 

 other substances, merely varying from them in its degree of molecular 

 complexity? Its most characteristic manifestation, its distinguishing 

 mode of motion, its peculiar force the one specific activity constitut- 

 ing its most vital difference is better known to us than any quality 

 which forms the distinguishing feature between other substances. Do 

 we greatly concern ourselves about the origin of MgO,S0 3 +7H a O, or 

 any other mineral substance ? Why, then, should the origin of some 

 combination of C, H, N, O, be made a question of the life and death 

 of our principal philosophies? Has it actually come to this, that the 

 scientific foundation of our creed rests on the decision whether COO is 

 or was once changed into CHO by natural or supernatural means ; and 

 this when there is plenty of H about in our world ? Yes, it is even so, 



