52 
and animals. It is impossible for us to connect consistently in the same 
argument the life of the plant and the life of the animal. The life of the 
animal is such a different thing in its nature and its results from the life of 
the plant, that I think there has been some confusion in different parts of the 
paper, arising from Mr. Wheatley’s desire to keep his argument abreast 
of both those kinds of life. It is impossible to consider the origin of 
life without considering the end of life. To us, with our belief, death may 
be taken to be a negation of life — the abstraction of life. When that life 
which has been given us is taken from us, death ensues. But if I can work 
out properly the argument which must be worked out, it must follow that 
death is not a negation of life, but something actually positive, and not by 
any means a negation. Then what becomes of life in the end ? These 
philosophers say that life is pressed into the body — that it arises in some 
fashion which we cannot explain. Supposing that this is accepted as 
satisfactory, I would still ask, What becomes of life when death arrives ? 
Because, though we are told that the physical body is resolved into its 
elements, and that no atom of it is lost, — that you can trace it all in different 
forms, — still nobody has undertaken to trace what becomes of the life. 
It is gone : you cannot trace it, or find it in any shape. If it was born by 
chance, yet, having once been made, why is it to end any more than the body ? 
Why is life to pass out of existence if the body is not ? No philosophical 
answer has been given to this question. Though very much tempted, I will 
not, of course, go into the question of what becomes of the soul, because that 
is another matter altogether. Take an animal or a man dead. I can 
understand about the body. I know what will become of it. I can under- 
stand how it will be separated into its elements, but I cannot understand 
what will become of the life. I cannot see that it will turn into nitrogen or 
oxygen, or find what gases it is composed of. That is a question which 
might have been very aptly argued, and I think Mr. Wheatley would have 
done well if he had dealt with it in his paper. (Hear, hear.) 
Mr. Wahington. — Before touching on the question which is before us, I 
will refer for a moment to that point as to what becomes of life, with regard 
to which I think I shall be able to explain the difliculty which has arisen. 
If life in vegetables or animals has originated from the modification of 
natural forces, it ends by a resolution into that out of which it originated. It 
goes back to that out of which it sprung. If you allow a quantity of light 
to fall on a dark surface, all the light which is absorbed is held to have 
resolved itself into another form of force, that which we call heat. So life 
passing away would resolve itself into some one or other form of force. 
I do not say that that is my view ; I do not believe this myself ; but 
I think that that would be the explanation given by those who hold 
the views which have been alluded to as to the origin and destruction 
of life. I only want to show that the difficulty in this question is 
not so very great. It would simply be considered as life passing back to 
that out of which it sprung. As to the paper itself, allow me first to 
notice what appears to me to be a misapprehension on the part of the 
