53 
author as to the nature of organic matter. He endeavours to show that 
there is something intrinsically different in organic matter, as matter, which 
necessitates the supposition of a different origin. He says in one place, 
“ There are peculiarities of composition in organic substance and structure, 
marking it off from the rest of creation by a deep and a wide valley, across 
which no human arm can throw a bridge. There are many elementary sub- 
stances found in organic matter, the whole of which are not, however, pre- 
sent in all organisms. The four principal do pervade all that is organic, 
hence commonly called organic elements ; — they are oxygen, hydrogen, 
nitrogen, and carbon. The presence of those in the organic is universal. 
They are also of the inorganic : and thus far, being common to both, why 
may not the one produce the other ? — the lifeless, elaborate life ? The pecu- 
liarities of their distribution forbid it. The elements generally form a 
binary combination in minerals ; but in the organic world, at least three — 
usually four — of the elementary principles enter into combination to form 
the proximate principle — to educe each simplest substance.” — I would deny 
in toto that mineral substances are generally, or scarcely even at all, binary 
compounds. Binary compounds, on the contrary, are rare. There are many 
cases of three, and plenty of four : so far like organic compounds. The 
difference Mr. Wheatley had in his mind was, no doubt, this, that in the 
mineral world you can trace the way in which the more complex compound 
has been built up, and show that it is binary in its complex form. But the 
whole tendency of chemistry shows us that this is true of the organic world. 
You can group your elements into radicals and connect them with other 
radicals. Take the whole theory of types in chemistry. Chemistry tells us 
of the water type, the muriatic acid type, and the ammonia type — all inorganic 
types, — and the tendency is to reduce organisms to these three inorganic 
types. Chemists are able now, by means of such simple natural processes by 
which they build up inorganic substances, to build up organic substances. 
They can, at any rate, build up the same compounds which are originated by 
means of life, but that does not mean that they can form life. It does not 
follow that in plants or animals they are formed in the same manner. The 
long roimdabout method adopted by the chemists is very different from the 
“ short cut ” action of life. Chemists can make organic matter ; but when 
they have got that they have not got organic life. It is only to point out 
what is irrelevant that I have gone into this criticism about organic matter. 
When you come to the life itself — the power which directs the natural forces 
of the plant or animal — no physical science will explain that. But let us 
be careful to see where the essential point lies, in order that we may not 
expose ourselves to a retort, for having misstated our argument. We find 
that a plant not only requires a certain amount of material to form its 
structure, but a certain amount of force to employ in its work. A seed put 
into the ground will not germinate unless it obtains sufficient heat to be 
used up by the plant in doing its work. You can connect the amount of work 
done with the amount of force employed in doing it. A later stage of its 
existence requires a certain amount of light, the employment of which is seen 
