128 . ( 5 6) 



Generally, then, Mr. Huxley's analogy does not hold, 

 whether in the one reference or the other, and Mr. 

 Huxley has no warrant for the reduction of protoplasm 

 to the mere chemical level which he assigns it in either. 

 That level is brought very prominently forward in such 

 expressions as these : That it is only necessary to 

 bring the chemical elements " together," " under cer- 

 tain conditions," to give rise to the more complex body, 

 protoplasm, just as there is a similar expedient to give 

 rise to water ; and that, under the influence of pre- 

 existing living protoplasm, carbonic acid, water, and 

 ammonia disappear, and an equivalent weight of proto- 

 plasm makes its appearance, just as, under the influence 

 of the electric spark, hydrogen and oxygen disappear, 

 and an equivalent weight of water makes its appear- 

 ance. All this, plainly, is to assume for protoplasm 

 such mere chemical place and nature as consist not 

 with the facts. The cases are, in truth, not parallel, 

 and the " certain conditions" are wholly diverse. All 

 that is said we can do at will for water, but nothing of 

 what is said can we do at will for protoplasm. To say 

 we can feed protoplasm, and so make protoplasm at will 

 produce protoplasm, is very much, in the circumstances, 

 only to say, and is not to say, that, in this way, we make 

 a chemical experiment. To insist on a chemical anal- 

 ogy, in fact, between water and protoplasm, is to omit 

 the differences not covered by the analogy at all 

 thought, design, life, and all the processes of organiza- 

 tion ; and it is but simple procedure to omit these dif- 

 ferences only by an appeal to ignorance elsewhere. 



It is hardly worth while, perhaps, to refer now again 

 to the difference here, however, once more incident- 

 ally suggested between protoplasm and protoplasm. 



