112 (40) 



ley here, it will, I fancy, not be difficult to demonstrate. 



The analogy to which Mr. Huxley trusts has two ref- 

 erences : one, to chemical composition, and one to a 

 certain stimulus that determines it. As regards chemi- 

 cal composition, we are asked, by virtue of the analogy 

 obtaining, to identify, as equally simple instances of it, 

 protoplasm here and water there ; and, as regards the 

 stimulus in question, we are asked to admit the action 

 of the electric spark in the one case to be quite analo- 

 gous to the action of preexisting protoplasm in the 

 other. In both references I shall endeavor to point 

 out that the analogy fails ; or, as we may say it also, 

 that, even to Mr. Huxley, it can only seem to succeed 

 by discounting the elements of difference that still 

 subsist. 



To begin with chemical combination, it is not unjust 

 to demand that the analogy which must be admitted to 

 exist in that, and a general physical respect, should not 

 be strained beyond its legitimate limits. Protoplasm 

 cannot be denied to be a chemical substance ; proto- 

 plasm cannot be denied to be a physical substance. As 

 a compound of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, 

 it comports itself chemically at least in ultimate in- 

 stance in a manner not essentially different from that 

 in which water, as a compound of hydrogen and oxy- 

 gen, comports itself chemically. In mere physical as- 

 pect, again, it may count quality for quality with water 

 in the same aspect. In short, so far as it is on chemi- 

 cal and physical structure that the possession of dis- 

 tinctive properties in any case depends, both bodies 

 may be allowed to be pretty well on a par. The anal- 

 ogy must be allowed to hold so far : so far but no 

 farther. One step farther and we see not only that 



