221 
natural plienomeua, and to think over the wonders around 
them, some scientific authorities tliink to spread their views, 
by threatening to place all who do not agree with them in a 
class, in which nobody likes to be included, however large it 
may be. 
Professor Huxley, with that curious partiality for contra- 
dictory statements which distinguishes many of his utter- 
ances, condemns in one place the idea of an ‘^^indivisible 
unitary archaeus dominating from its central seat the parts of 
the organism,^^ and in another tells us that “ the body is a 
machine of the nature of an army."’^ Every army to be of 
any use must, of course, be under a head of some kind or 
other, but Mr. Huxley’s army has no general or indivisible 
unitary archaeus of any kind. Each soldier is, I suppose, to 
govern himself under inexorable laws enacted when everything 
was in the state of primitive nebulosity. The army of Professor 
Huxley is, as we shall see, the most marvellous of all nebulous 
machinery yet discovered by materialists. 
Now let us admit for a moment that the body may be com- 
pared to a “ machine ” of the nature of an army. How does 
the comparison help us to understand the nature of the body ? 
For is not the army actually composed of a number of 
machines of the very same kind as that body machine which 
is said to be like it ? What, therefore, can be gained by the 
comparison ? Obviously nothing would be gained by telling 
people who wanted to learn about the nature of a sheep 
that it was like a flock of sheep. But the body is a machine 
of the nature of an army, and the microcosm contains the 
macrocosm, and, therefore, possibly the body, according to 
Huxleyan logic, contains the army. But I may be wrong, for 
it is not an army, but ct machine of the nature of an army. 
We have machines of the nature of a watch, machines of the 
nature of a windmill, and machines of other natures, but the 
machine which the body is like, is of the nature of an army. 
But this last machine ” is essentially difierent from all the 
other machines because it is composed of living men while 
machines in general consist of non-living materials. In 
short. Professor Huxley uses the word machine just as he 
uses the word protoplasm in speaking of that which is living 
as well as of that which is not living ! 
But Mr. Huxley’s ‘‘ machine of the nature of an army ” 
shall be further examined. It will be found to be very 
peculiar indeed, whether it is compared with machines or 
with armies. The army of Professor Huxley would not be 
recognised as an army by any general, or by any soldier in 
existence. This remarkable army has its losses made good 
