286 
Transactions of the 
[Monthly Microscopical 
Journal, Muy i, 1869. 
as many times as we please ; but the elements of protoplasm once 
separated from one another, can never be combined again to form 
any kind of protoplasm. But further, every kind of protoplasm differs 
from every other kind most remarkably in the results of its living, 
one producing man, another dog, a third butterfly, a fourth amoeba, 
and so on. Now, what can be more absurd than to suggest that 
the properties of man, dog, butterfly, and amoeba are due not to 
vitality, but to the constituent elements of their tissues ? Are the 
properties of the elements of dog so different from those of the ele- 
ments of man, as to account for the differences between dog and 
man ? Wonderful properties have indeed to be discovered in con- 
nection with elements before we can refer the differences in property 
of hving beings compounded of them to the properties of the ele- 
ments. The argument advanced against vitality, as far as it rests 
upon the non-existence of aquosity, is utterly worthless, and it is 
astonishing that any writer who gave his readers credit for mode- 
rate intelligence should have adduced it at all. 
The different forms and properties of living beings can only be 
explained by supposing the influence of force different from ordinary 
forces acting upon matter, or upon the existence of properties not 
due to the inorganic properties, but of a totally distinct kind, 
derived from pre-existing matter having similar, though perhaps not 
identical properties. These vital ^properties seem to be superadded 
to matter temporarily, and are obviously not permanent endow- 
ments. The one class oi properties remains permanently attached 
to the elements of matter ; the other may be once removed, but can 
never be restored. The material properties belong to the matter, 
whether living or dead ; but where are the vital properties in the 
dead material? If physicists and chemists would restore to life 
that which is dead, we should all believe in the doctrine they teach. 
So long as they tell us their investigations only tend towards sucli 
a consummation, they must expect a few to be sceptical. 
Mr. Huxley seems to maintain that protoplasm may be killed and 
dried, roasted and boiled, or otherwise altered, and yet remain pro- 
toplasm ; but his "protoplasm " is after all only albuminoid or protein 
matter.* Huxley says lobster-protoplasm may be converted into 
human protoplasm, and the latter again turned unto living lobster. 
But the statement is incorrect ; because, in the process of assimi- 
lation " protoplasm " is entirely disintegrated, and is not converted 
into the new tissue in the form of protoplasm at all ; and he must 
permit me to remark that sheep cannot be transubstantiated into 
man, even by " subtle influences," nor can dead protoplasm be con- 
* Mr. Huxley says " all protoplasm is proteinaceous ; or, as tlie wliite or alLumen 
of an egg is one of the commonebt examples of a nearly pure protein matter, we 
may say that all living matter is more or less albuminoid. " If the white of an egg 
im living matter, why should not its shell be so considered ? 
