ORIGIN AND NATURE OF LIFE. 333 



laboratory into the kingdom of life? And if one 

 mass could do it, why not all ? Why do those ven- 

 erable metamorphic rocks remain at the root of the 

 genealogical tree, unchanged ? Perhaps this may 

 prove another instance of the survival of the fittest. 

 Here, then, is the flaw. These recent theorists ac- 

 cept life as a fact ; and they start with it. They are 

 superstitiously contented to begin and end with the 

 mystery, because they are either afraid or unwilling 

 to acknowledge the operation of a formal and effi- 

 cient Cause in the Evolution of material substances." ' 



As to the artificial production of living from non- 

 living matter, of which sundry enthusiastic chemists 

 have so fondly dreamed, it can be positively asserted 

 that if ever effected it will be along lines quite dif- 

 ferent from those which certain over-sanguine spec- 

 ulators have indicated. 



The great feat achieved by Wohler, in 1828, in 

 making urea an organic compound, previously sup- 

 posed to be the result of vital forces alone from 

 inorganic matter, was but the prelude of those bril- 

 liant triumphs of synthetic chemistry which since 

 have so frequently astonished the world. During 

 the past few decades, especially, organic compounds 

 of the most marvelous complexity have been manu- 

 factured in the laboratory, until now there are not 

 wanting chemists who affect to hope, that they will 

 one day be able to rival nature herself in the num- 

 ber and complexity of her products. Their powers 

 of analysis, we are willing to concede, are practically 

 unlimited. They can tell us not only the composi- 



1 Harper's " Metaphysics of the School," vol. II, p. 747. 



