PREFACE. 9 



In answer to my proposition which speaks of " life-matter " as, 

 in Mr Huxley's belief, "due only to chemistry," Mr Huxley affirms 

 "statement number (2) is, in my judgment, absurd ; and cer- 

 tainly I have never said anything resembling it." One is pleased 

 to think that Mr Huxley has now come to consider such an 

 opinion " absurd," but " certainly I have never said anything re- 

 sembling it ! " Mr Huxley, for aught I know, may have some 

 quibble in his mind about the phrase " due to chemistry ; " but 

 he has always, and everywhere, for all that, described his " life- 

 matter as due to chemistry," and here are a few examples : 



" 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 pro- 

 perties of protoplasm result from the nature and disposition of 

 its molecules." 



Is it possible for words more definitely to convey the state- 

 ment that the properties of water and protoplasm are precisely 

 on the same level, and that as the former are of molecular 

 (physical, chemical) origin, so are the latter ? Again, after having 

 told us that protoplasm is carbonic acid, water, and ammonia, 

 " which certainly possess no properties but those of ordinary 

 matter," he proceeds to speak as follows: 



" Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are all lifeless 

 bodies. Of these carbon and oxygen unite in certain propor- 

 tions and under certain conditions, to give rise to carbonic acid ; 

 hydrogen and oxygen produce water ; nitrogen and hydrogen 

 give rise to ammonia. These new compounds, like the elemen- 

 tary bodies of which they are composed, are lifeless." 



So far then, surely, I am allowed to say that these new com- 

 pounds are due to chemistry. Observe now what follows : 



"But when they" (the compounds) "are brought together, 

 under certain conditions, they give rise to the still more complex 

 body, protoplasm, and this protoplasm exhibits the phenomena of 

 life. I see no break in this series of steps in molecular compli- 

 cation, and I am unable to understand why the language which 

 is applicable to any one term of the series, may not be used to 

 any of the others." 



Here, evidently, I am ordered by Mr Huxley himself, not to 

 change my language, but to characterise these latter results as 

 I characterised those former ones. If I spoke then of ammonia, 

 etc., as due to chemistry, so must I now speak of protoplasm, 



