i88i.] 
75 
Life and its Basis. 
tinued by direCt and ordinary nutrition. In both these stages 
of its existence, the method of procedure is such as to evolve, 
gradatim et seriatim, an organism closely resembling that of 
the parent. It is no doubt true, that in this evolution the 
embryo passes in succession through forms which are 
observed to be permanent in lower animals ; but this only 
proves the unity of the author and the unity of his plans : 
there is no chance of random processes. In a few excep- 
tional cases the process is interrupted, and stops short of 
completion : but our ignorance of the reason for such excep- 
tions is far from justifying a doubt, either of the power or 
wisdom of the Maker of them. He, having previously 
bestowed on the parent an * anima ’ and volition, may 
allow that will and its results, to affeCt the process of organ- 
ization in its body, so as to cause what physiology desig- 
nates ‘ abortions,’ or ‘ abortive organs.’ And even if it can 
be shown that such variations are continued for one or more 
successive generations, this is a very slender ground for the 
extravagant notion of some naturalists, that each organ has 
its own germ , which is transmitted from generation to gene- 
ration ; or the still more unintelligible idea of involved germs ; 
a theory which sees all its future progeny in a single seed or 
in a simple molecule of protoplasm. 
The number of these ‘ animse ’ must of course be indefinitely 
great, and their variety hardly less so. For not only do 
they differ in different species, but in the individuals of each 
species. The variety is fully as great as that of the bodies 
they inhabit. But this is a characteristic of the works of 
Nature; while a grand unity runs through all, they are as 
far as possible from presenting a dull uniformity . We may 
almost say that the Great Ruler of Nature seems to 
delight in displaying before His rational creatures, the 
exuberance of infinite resource, in the diversity of His pro- 
ductions. 
The hypothesis, however, of the independent origin of indi- 
vidual animal souls, now proposed, seems to contradict the 
received doCtrine of heredity, which regards the ‘ anima ’ as 
derived from that of the parent animal. Let us then consider 
this point more closely. Little as we know of the essential 
nature of our own minds (or souls) their individual unity is 
absolutely certain, as also their non-materiality. They can- 
not therefore be said to have parts, or to be discerptible. 
Hence the derivation of one soul from another cannot be 
taken to mean the detachment of a portion of one soul to 
form another. Whatever connection then may be predicated 
between the 4 animce ’ of parent and offspring, it can only be 
G 2 
