138 f^g j&ernums, (Sssags, mtir IJLefeiefos. [vn. 



If the properties of water may be properly said to 

 result from the nature and disposition of its component 

 molecules, I can find no intelligible ground for refusing 

 to say that the properties of protoplasm result from the 

 nature and disposition of its molecules. 



But I bid you beware that, in accepting these conclu- 

 sions, you are placing your feet on the first rung of a 

 ladder which, in most people's estimation, is the reverse 

 of Jacob's, and leads to the antipodes of heaven. It may 

 seem a small thing to admit that the dull vital actions 

 of a fungus, or a fpraminifer, are the properties of their 

 protoplasm, and are the direct results of the nature of the 

 matter of which they are composed. But if, as I have 

 endeavoured to prove to you, their protoplasm is essen- 

 tially identical with, and most readily converted into, 

 that of any' animal, I can discover no logical halting- 

 place between the admission that such is the case, and 

 the further concession that all vital action may, with 

 equal propriety, be said to be the result of the molecular 

 forces of the protoplasm which displays it. And if so, 

 it must be true, in the same sense and to the same 

 extent, that the thoughts to which I am now giving 

 utterance, and your thoughts regarding them, are the 

 expression of molecular changes in that matter of life 

 which is the source of our other vital phsenomena. 



Past experience leads me to be tolerably certain that, 

 when the propositions I have just placed before you are 

 ; accessible to public comment and criticism, they will be 

 condemned by many zealous persons, and perhaps by 

 some few of the wise and thoughtful. I should not 

 wonder if "gross and brutal materialism" were the 

 mildest phrase applied to them in certain quarters. 

 And, most undoubtedly, the terms of the propositions are 

 distinctly materialistic. Nevertheless two things are 



