Mr. Keynolds searclies vainly for an intelligible answer to 
this question^ which conducts us to the very confines of our 
knowledge^ and shows us how wonderful is the constitution 
of Nature. This is well stated by Dr. Lionel S. Beale, 
F.B.S., who has instructed us more in the mystery of life 
than any other author : — 
“ In living centres, far more central than the centre as seen by the highest 
magnifying powers, in centres of living matter where the eye cannot pene- 
trate, but towards which the understanding may tend, proceed changes of 
the nature which the most advanced physicists and chemists fail to afford us 
the faintest conception.” 
This is real science and real philosophy, and shows that we 
do not fully comprehend Nature in her most common modes 
of action, and therefore, no wonder that we have no proper 
words to describe the mystery hidden behind the above 
centres. But our wise men who deny all God-given know- 
ledge have no difficulty in forging explanations. 
Listen to the following (quoted at p. 109, Keynolds*) : — 
'‘So that when a man, translating the formula, says ‘ the joining of stuff 
into a lump, then the equal unjoining and sending out of movement from it, 
the making stuff* pass from a no sort of unstickingness into some sort of 
holding-togetherness, whjle the movement not sent out undergoes a like 
change from no sort of keeping-togetherness into some sort of sticking.’ ” 
Haeckel tells us, Life is nothing but a connected chain of 
very complicated material phenomena of motion. These 
motions must be considered as changes in the position and 
combination of the molecules (p. 104). 
And Haeckel is a consistent Materialist and the prince of 
all Evolutionists ; so that having failed to reach any water in 
pumping at this dry well, I am not so much disappointed in 
coming back to our authors own explication : — 
“ We are driven to the conclusion that, complex as are chemical units, 
physiological or life units are more complex ; that difference of composition 
in these units themselves, leading to differences in the mutual iffay of 
energies, causes the endless varieties of existing forms ” (p. 104). 
I must be pardoned for saying that we do not understand 
these varieties nor what constitutes the individuality of any 
Being our author’s rendering in English of the sentence he quotes from 
H. Spencer’s Fmi Principles (p. 396). This piece of “plausible inanity,” 
as quoted by Eeynolds, is as follows 
“ It is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion, 
during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity, 
to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion 
undergoes a parallel transformation.” 
