219 
# 
only difference is a difference in the rate or degree of activity 
of the molecular mechanisms of which matter dead and matter 
roasted and boiled^ living, not living, of every kind and form, 
and in every state, is composed. The matter which consists 
of molecular mechanisms includes, of course, simple and com- 
pound substances. Iron, oxygen, a particle of roast mutton, 
and a particle of living matter, are all included in one 
category. All consist, according to Professor Huxley, of 
molecular mechanisms ; but the molecular mechanisms of some 
of these things must consist of more elements than those of 
others, and the mechanisms of the living protoplasm are surely 
capable of movements of a character totally different from 
those of the oxygen. Moreover, it is certainly remarkable 
that the molecular mechanisms of all forms of protoplasm 
should contain the same four elements. By abstracting one 
or more of these, the molecular mechanisms of protoplasm 
would be destroyed, and yet molecular mechanisms of some 
kind or other would remain. Mr. Huxley does not tell us how 
we are to distinguish the simple molecular mechanisms from 
compound molecular mechanisms, nor how the molecular 
mechanisms of a simple substance like lead differ from those 
of a compound like his protoplasm. It would seem that the 
molecular mechanisms of lead are, according to this hypothesis, 
as much alive as the molecular mechanisms of living proto- 
plasm, but that the latter are more active than the former. 
They differ in degree, but not in kind. 
Professor Huxley must surely have formed a rather low 
estimate of the intelligence and critical power of the medical 
profession, to expect them to be convinced by him that the 
only difference between living matter and non-living matter 
is a difference of degree. He asserts that there are compli- 
cated movements in the matter of which all living and all 
non-living matter consists. And, without one word of expla- 
nation as to what he means, he tells an audience, consisting of 
highly- educated men from every part of the world, that the 
microcosm repeats the macrocosm, and that one chain of 
causation connects the nebulous original of suns and planetary 
systems with the protoplasmic foundation of life and organisa- 
tion.^^ Is thought, I would ask, to be silenced by such 
nebulous nonsense as this ? So far from anything like a 
chain of causation having been shown, not two links of such 
supposed chain have yet been discovered. But the whole chain 
of causation which connects nebulous originals of suns and 
planets with protoplasmic foundations is of so nebulous 
a nature that it scarcely deserves notice. The microcosm 
repeats the macrocosm,^^ says Professor Huxley; but, the more 
