189 
imputed to him an accordance with such a miserable piece of logic as that 
which I have just read. Now in this lecture which I have been commenting 
upon, he is quite correct upon some points ; and that is what is calculated to 
mislead the intelligence of others upon other points. He is quite correct 
in saying that protoplasm is produced only under the influence of living 
protoplasm, but he makes no allusion to the indispensable influence of 
the pre-existing germ or organism of the living being. He makes no 
allusion to that necessary antecedent ; it would not suit the gist of his 
argument. 
Rev. J. Manners. — I should like to say a word or two with regard to 
Professor Huxley’s theory. I should like to give him this simple equation 
to solve: let him take C H ON — call them definite, indefinite, or variable 
quantities, or what you like, — and from these quantities let him find me 
Swj?, or life. Let him do it as a sort of algebraic problem : given four un- 
known quantities to find a known positive quantity. Let him have C H 0 
and N, or protoplasm, and from that let him tell us what is life. We know 
that carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen form various combinations ; but 
how do they form what you call protoplasm ? Where did you get that name 
from ? Why do you introduce it ? You tell me it is the basis of life — the 
basis or foundation of life. But I must first know what you mean by “ foun- 
dation ” ; we must have no mistake about our words ; and then I must know’ 
what you mean by “ life.” I say that all these arguments seem to me, after 
all, to involve the great truth which they appear to deny. But let us come 
back to this most interesting paper of Mr. Wheatley’s. The term “ life ” we 
know requires an adjective to qualify it in order to give us a proper idea 
of what we mean by it ; but at the same time the word itself lies very deep, 
deeper far than any mere matter of history, or any mere matter of form, or of 
materialism. It seems to me that the origin of life must be life, whether in 
the beautiful forms of the vegetable world or of the animal kingdom. The 
origin of intelligence, the origin of the will, the origin of thought, the origin 
of desire, the origin of love, — all these must be anterior to that which is the 
manifestation of these various principles ; and therefore we come at once, as 
a matter of sound, common, inductive reasoning, to the conclusion that the 
origin of all these principles which we find manifested in creation must be 
life. In inorganic matter, when we wish to resolve it into its primitive 
elements, the chemist comes in to our assistance. He takes a drop of water, 
for instance, and he says, “ I find it is composed of oxygen and hydrogen ” ; 
and if he takes these elements, and passes an electrical spark through them* 
he immediately obtains water. But when we have got so far, I want to know 
the cause of all this. I want the cause of this living, essential, vital, wonder- 
ful, and beautiful power, which has not only brought these things about, but 
which preserves them, and gives them their beauty and form in their present 
manifestation. It seems to me, therefore, that all true science must have its 
basis, not in what is commonly called inorganic or dead, insensible mate- 
rialism ; the cause for all these things must be found in the spiritual and 
eternal. There will be no advance in true science ; there can be no real 
