^S,ai,EyTi&m'T ^oyal Microscopical Society. 285 
to cell-laboratories and molecular machinery, when every one knows 
there is nothing like a laboratory or machinery in any cell in any 
organism. And what is the use of talking about " subtle influences " 
(Huxley) effecting chemical change, without explaining what these 
subtle influences are ? 
Here are some specimens of the dogmatic assertions which have 
been advanced in place of facts and arguments, in favour of the 
physico-chemical doctrines. The difference between a crystal 
of calc spar and amorphous carbonate of lime corresponds to the 
difference between living matter and the matter which results from 
its death. Just as by chemical analysis we learn the composition 
of calc spar, so by chemical analysis we ascertain the composition of 
living matter. Can any one suppose that there is any real differ- 
ence in the nature of the molecular forces which compel the car- 
bonate of lime to assume and retain the crystalline form, and those 
which cause the albuminoid matter to move and groAV, select and 
form and maintain its particles in a state of incessant motion? 
The crystallizing property is to crystallizable matter what the vital 
property is to albuminoid matter (protoplasm). The crystalline form 
corresponds to the organic form, and its internal structure to tissue 
structure. Crystalline force being a property of matter, vital force 
is but a property of matter. It might be objected that crystalline 
force keeps particles still and compels them to assume a constant form, 
while vital force prevents them from assuming any definite form at 
all and keeps them moving,— /orm being assumed only when the 
matter is withdrawn from the influence of the vital force ; but these 
and any other objections raised to the physical theory of life are 
accounted absurd and frivolous. It has been asserted positively that 
there is but one true theory of life — the physical theory. Its 
advocates seem to think that any objections raised to this ought 
not to be listened to, because they consider it quite certain that by 
the rapid advance of molecular physics, the truth of their theory 
will by-and-by be fully established. 
The properties possessed by inorganic compounds are supposed 
to be due in some way to the properties of the elements of which 
they consist. Thus it has been remarked that the properties of 
water result from the properties of its constituent gases, and are 
not due to " aquosity," as if any reasonable man would think of 
referring the properties of water to such a " subtle influence " as 
" aquosity." It has been argued that since the properties of water 
are due to its gases and not to aquosity, the properties of proto- 
plasm are due to its elements, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and 
Carbon, and not to vitality. But the cases are by no means 
parallel. Of water there is but one kind. Of protoplasm there 
are kinds innumerable. The constituent elements of the same 
particle of water may be separated and recombined again and again 
X 2 
