(39) in 



ter, precisely on the same level as the properties of wa- 

 ter. The cases are perfectly parallel. It is as absurd 

 to attribute a new entity vitality to protoplasm, as a new 

 entity aquosity to water. Or, if it is by its mere chem- 

 ical and physical structure that water exhibits certain 

 .properties called aqueous, it is also by its mere chemi- 

 cal and physical structure that protoplasm exhibits cer- 

 tain properties called vital. All that is necessary in 

 either case is, " under certain conditions," to bring the 

 chemical constituents together. If water is a molecu- 

 lar complication, protoplasm is equally a molecular com- 

 plication, and for the description of the one or the 

 other there is no change of language required. A new 

 substance with new qualities results in precisely the 

 same way here, as a new substance with new qualities 

 there ; and the derivative qualities are not more differ- 

 ent from the primitive qualities in the one instance, 

 than the derivative qualities are different from the prim- 

 itive qualities in the other. Lastly, the modus operandi 

 of preexistent protoplasm is not more unintelligible than 

 that of the electric spark. The conclusion is irresisti- 

 ble, then, that all protoplasm being reciprocally con- 

 vertible, and consequently identical, the properties it 

 displays, vitality and intellect included, are as much 

 the result of molecular constitution as those of water 

 itself. 



It is evident, then, that the fulcrum on which Mr. 

 Huxley's second proposition rests, is a single inference 

 from a chemical analogy. Analogy, however, being 

 never identity, is apt to betray. The difference it hides 

 may be essential, that is, while the likeness it shows 

 may be inessential so far as the conclusion is con- 

 cerned. That this mischance has overtaken Mr. Hux- 



