i88i.] 
Life and its Basis . 
5 
choose to combine in definite atomic ratios ? They may 
indeed seem to be alive, if motion is to be taken as an ade- 
quate proof of life. Indeed, upon this ground, Haeckel 
consistently enough argues (vol. i., p. 23) that “ all material 
bodies which are known are equally animated.” This may 
indeed be a real and a grand truth, though in a sense per- 
haps not intended by its author. 
But if this were granted, it does not prove that there is no 
difference between the forces which produce living and non- 
living things ; for the same principle or power may surely 
adt in widely diverse manners, in order to produce certain 
results. Physico-materiai motions and physico-vital move- 
ments, as they alike require and imply power for their cause, 
so do they alike demand intelligence to diredt and apply 
them. 
To proceed with our history. We have now got a non- 
living compound called protoplasm, as the result of the 
adtion of some power upon inert manner. But how does it 
become living ? All investigation seems to show that, while 
the contadt of living protoplasm is indispensable to this 
process, nothing tangible is added to the non-living matter. 
Dr. Huxley compares it to the change of oxygen and hy- 
drogen into water, under the term “ aquosity,” but confesses 
that the influence of living upon dead matter is “ unintelli- 
gible ” (“ Lay Serm.,” p. 150). It is so except upon one 
hypothesis, that a power is here adting which proceeds upon 
the rule or method (as far as we can scrutinise it) to com- 
mence from living matter, and to vivify particles in imme- 
diate contadt with it, — not to communicate life to unattached 
inorganic matter. To infer from this, however, that such 
an adtion never takes place, is illogical and unphilosophical ; 
and still more so, that it cannot and never has taken place. 
Even Haeckel admits that in certain primeval conditions of 
the earth’s surface “ spontaneous generation,” or, as it 
should more accurately be expressed, the vivification of in- 
organic elements, may have occurred ( see “ Hist, of Creation,” 
vol. i., p. 341). The term “ spontaneous ” was intended to 
refer to the ‘‘will” of the living being, who was supposed 
capable of calling itself into existence — a palpable absurdity. 
But if it is called into being by the will of another, the hypo- 
thesis becomes a reasonable one — indeed the equivalent of 
“ creation.” And what essential difference, it may be asked, 
is there between the two cases ? In the one there is contadt 
with living matter, and in the other not ; and that is all. 
Nor can we be sure that any contadt, however close, would 
make the transfer of life a necessary consequence. The 
