812 ANATOMY OF VERTEBRATES. 



subject, were it not that ghosts of * pre-existence ' and ' evolution ' 

 still haunt some chambers of the physiological mansion, and even 

 exercise, to many, perhaps, an unsuspected, sway over certain 

 biological problems. 



Although in the Debates of 1830, the question of ' Pre- 

 existence of Germs,' was the sole one in which, as applied to 

 Embryogeny, I held with Geoffroy Saint- Hilaire, I remained 

 the thrall of that dogma in regard to the origin of single-celled 

 organisms, whether in or out of body. 1 Every result of formifac- 

 tion I believed, with most physiologists, to be the genetic outcome 

 of a pre-existing i cell.' The first was due to miraculous interpo- 

 sition and suspension of ordinary laws ; it contained, potentially, 

 all future possible cells. Cell-development exemplified evolution 

 of pre-existing germs, the progeny of the primary cell. They 

 propagated themselves by self-division, or by * proliferation ' of 

 minute granules or atoms, which, when properly nourished, again 

 multiplied by self-division, and grew to the likeness of the parent- 

 cells. 



Those who still hold by this rag of ( pre-existence of germs,' 

 call all organic corpuscles or granules c cell-gemmules,' and main- 

 tain that they are transmitted, sometimes becoming developed, 



Transactions ' were, then, giving to the world the results of the improved Dutch mag- 

 nifying glasses, some of which results — e.g. ' spermatozoa ' — were interpreted in a 

 way which seemed to help the Bishop's view of the resurrection and his interpretation 

 of the texts, 1 Cor. xv. 37-40. I quote Locke's remark for its historical interest in 

 Microscopic Anatomy : — ' It does not appear, by any thing I can find in this text, that 

 St. Paul here compared the body produced, with the seminal and organical parts con- 

 tained in the grain it sprung from, but with the whole sensible grain that was sown. 

 Microscopes had not then discovered the little embryo plant in the seed ; and sup- 

 posing it should have been revealed to St. Paul (though in the Scripture we find little 

 revelation of natural philosophy), yet an argument taken from a thing perfectly un- 

 known to the Corinthians, whom he writ to, could be of no manner of use to them, 

 nor serve at all either to instruct or convince them. But granting that those St. Paul 

 writ to knew as well as Mr. Lewenhocke ; yet your Lordship thereby proves not the 

 raising of the same body,' &c. 



In fact Locke, having been driven by the Bishop to look into the Scriptural grounds 

 of that article of a progressively developed theological summary or ' creed,' which he 

 was charged by Stillingfleet with undermining, replied : 'I must not part with this 

 article of the resurrection, without returning my thanks to your Lordship for making 

 me take notice of a fault in my "Essay." When I writ that book, I took it for granted, 

 as I doubt not but many others have done, that the Scripture had mentioned in ex- 

 press terms, " the resurrection of the body;" but upon the occasion your Lordship 

 has given me in your last letter to look a little more narrowly into what revelation 

 has declared concerning the resurrection, and finding no such express words in the 

 Scripture, as that " the body shall rise or be raised, or the resurrection of the body," 

 I shall in the next edition of it change these words of my book, " the dead bodies of 

 men shall rise," into these of Scripture, " the dead shall rise."' (Essay, B. iv. c. 18. 

 § 7, and cccxxxvi". vol. i. p. 668.) ' ccxlix. cxxii. 



