
LIFE-HISTORIES AND THEIR LESSONS, 169 


The masters of Biology agree that there are none. Only that 
which is living can produce that which shall live. Dissociated 
molecules of lifeless matter, with no vital affinity to marshal them, 
are, as a matter of fact, never seen to endow themselves with the 
properties of life. 
Dealt with physically, it has, as a question, received masterly 
treatment at the hands of Tyndall, and his answer is emphatic— 
it is, that that which is not living does not give rise to that which 
lives. 
Biologically, it has been dealt with by all the workers in minute 
Biology, and their answer is, That as far down as we can reach, or 
see, with certainty, living things arise ultimately in living products— 
parental germs or spores—the equivalents of eggs or seeds. 
“But,” says the shallow reasoner, “if there be no spontaneous 
generation in nature, how can we have consistency in the great 
doctrine of Evolution? That process must have been a march of 
mighty progression from the beginning until now. Evolution is 
in danger by your facts!” I answer, if that be so, then I prefer 
the facts, to the doctrine of Evolution. But I affirm that such 
reasoning is wrong, and Professor Huxley shall give the answer. 
If once, in the mighty activities of the evolving past, dead matter 
was at some point of crisis and necessity changed into that which 
lived, and one of its properties was the capacity to multiply itself 
indefinitely, why do we need the constant change or transmutation 
of that which is dead into that which is living to-day? 
Says Huxley, “If all living beings have been evolved from pre- 
existing forms of life, it is enough that a single particle of protoplasm 
should once have appeared on the globe, as the result of no matter 
what agency; in the eyes of a consistent evolutionist any further 
independent formation of protoplasm would be sheer waste.”* 
Then the facts are:—z. That protoplasm or “bioplasm” is a 
certain definite compound possessing the properties of life. 
2. ‘That life is nowhere found without it. 
3. That only living matter can produce living matter. 
Now, I ask, Do the stability and precision discoverable in the 
operation of chemical and physical law, as applied to non-living 
substances, hold good in the operation of the discoverable laws of 
Biology? I maintain that they do. ; 
One error often entering into a discussion of matters concerning 
protoplasm, is to suppose that we are discussing an abstract thing. 
Who ever saw abstract protoplasm? ‘There is no such thing. You 
-™ay have the protoplasm of an alga, or of a trout, or of a man; 
but you cannot have protoplasm that belongs to nothing. As there 
1s no abstract matter discoverable by us, so there is no abstract 


*Ency, Brit., vol. iii., p. 689. 
