17 



of a wateli fi-om tlio form of its parts and the manner in Avhicli 

 they are pnt touetliei-. Ts the, case in any way changed when 

 carbonic acid, water, and ammonia disappear, and in tlieir place, 

 nn(Un- the intinence of pre-existing living ])rotoplasm, an equiva- 

 K'nt w eiglit of the matti^r (1' life makes its appearance ? It is trne 

 tliat. there is no sort of parity between tlie ])roperties of the com- 

 ponents and the ])ro])erties of tlie resultant, but neither was 

 tlieVe in the case of the water. It is also true tluit what I have 

 s|)ol<en of as the influence of pre-existing li\ing matter is some- 

 thing quite uriintelligible ; l)ut does anybody quite comprehend 

 the modus operandi of an electric S])ark, which traverses a mix- 

 ture of oxygen and hydrogen ? Wliat justification is there, then, 

 for the assnm])tion of the existence in the living matter of a 

 something which has no representative or correlative m the not 

 living matter whicli gave rise to it? What better philosophical 

 status has " vitality" than " aquosity ?" And why should 

 ^' vitality" hope for a ])etter fate than the other " itys" which 

 have disappeared since ]Martinus Scriblerus accounted for the 

 operation of the meat-jack by its inherent " meat roasting qnal- 

 ity," and scorned the "materialism" of those who explained the 

 turning of the s])it by a cei-tain mechanism worked by the 

 draught of the chimney? If scientitic language is to possess a 

 definite and constant signification whenever it is employed, it 

 seems to me that we are logically bound to apply to tlie proto- 

 plasm, or physical ])asis of life, the same conceptions as those 

 which are held to be legitimate elsewhere. If the phenomena 

 exhibited by water are its })roperties, so ai'c tliose presented by 

 ])rotoplasm, living or dead, its properties. If the properties of 

 water may be properly said to result from the nature and disposi- 

 tion of its component molecules, I can find no intelligible ground 

 for refusing to s ay that the properties of proto]) lasm result from 

 the nature aiul ^ dis])osition of j ts^ molecules. But I bid you 

 l)eware that, in accepting these conclusions, you are placing your 

 feet on the first rung of a ladder which, in most people's estima- 

 tion, 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 foraminifer, are the properties of their 

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

 ter of which they are composed. 



l)Ut if, as I have endeavored to prove to you, their proto- 

 plasm is essentially identical with, and most readily converted into, 



