28 



I am quite sure we shall agree that this is really the kernel of this moat 

 interesting subject. We are constantly told of the gradual passage from 

 the non-living to the living, and the formation of a living thing is often 

 spoken of as if the process were something like the change which takes place 

 in the formation of crystals. Most authorities who support the material- 

 istic hypothesis draw a parallel between the formation of the lowest forma 

 of living matter and crystals. Now, it must occur to every one who has at 

 all considered the subject of crystallisation, that although there may be 

 great difficulty in explaining the exact nature of the process, yet, neverthe- 

 less, it is well known that when a certain material is dissolved in fluid 

 under certain circumstances, and the solution becomes concentrated, crystals 

 are formed. Every tyro in chemistry has, probably, performed the experi- 

 ment with common salt ; and every such tyro, after having crystallised 

 common salt, has re-dissolved it, and re-crystallised it again and again ; and, 

 if he were to go on'crystallising and dissolving to the end of time, he would 

 only produce crystals of the same form and the same chemical composition. 

 Now, let him try to do this with regard to a living organism. The living 

 organism is there. We know that every particle of living matter has come 

 from a pre-existing living particle ; but let us endeavour to take ourselves 

 back to the time when there existed only the non-living, the inorganic 

 matter out of which the living had to be formed according to a method 

 as is affirmed somewhat resembling that of crystallisation. The chemical 

 compounds that form the living matter oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and 

 carbon are supposed to come together in obedience to certain attractions 

 and affinities which these primitive particles possess, but of which we know 

 very little ; but let us suppose a living thing is formed. Let us imagine 

 the particles brought together in the manner supposed, and that a particle 

 of living matter makes its appearance. We examine this particle, and try 

 to ascertain its nature, and for this purpose we try, as we have tried 

 in the case of the crystal, to dissolve it. What is the result ? We destroy 

 it ; we do not dissolve it. (Hear, hear.) It ceases to be living matter 

 before solution begins. It is no longer what it was before, and we cannot 

 make it so. It has gone ; it has ceased to be what it was, and we are not 

 dealing with a living particle, but simply with the material that has resulted 

 from the death of that which was before alive. We cannot re-form it. Once 

 dead, it is incapable of being re-produced. Therefore, it seems to me a most 

 extraordinary thing that some of the greatest authorities in science should 

 pretend to compare the formation of living matter with the formation of 

 crystals. There is not the slightest analogy, nor the faintest possible parallel, 

 no comparison between living things and crystals. There is all the differ- 

 ence in the world between the process of crystallisation and the formation 

 of living particles, which are supposed by Haeckel, and others who adopt 

 his views, to be alike. Whatever may be the marvellous changes that 

 occurred in the first formation of living matter, they cannot resemble in the 

 slightest degree any phenomena with which we are familiar. There are 

 no properties of matter that have as yet been discovered that can give us 



