is all that Mr. Huxley has to offer. One "might-have-been " and one "may-be" is the support of the great conclusion. We cannot allow him even this much, since, as he tells us that protoplasm may die and often is dead, it necessarily follows that protoplasm is not life. Pages of similar assertions and fancies might be gathered from the leading works on this subject, together with not a few contemptuous expressions about the believers in vitality. The odium theologicum is a favorite charge against the theologians; but it really seems as if there is an odium scientificum which is not one whit more honorable. Dr. Beale, one of the first microscopists of the day, in an essay on the Mystery of Life complains as follows: "It is indeed significant if as seems to be the case at this time in England, an investigator cannot be allowed to remark that the facts, which he has demonstrated, and phenomena, which he has observed, render it impossible for him to assent at present to the dogma, that life is a mode of ordinary force, without being held up by some who entertain opinions at variance with his own, as a person who desires to stop or retard investigation, who disbelieves in the correlation of the physical forces, and in the established truths of science."

Disregarding now all mere assertion and imagination, what is really proved in the premises?

A living organism manifests properties so different from those of inorganic matter that unless some plausible explanation can be found in the properties of the latter we must assume some peculiar power, some distinct cause to explain the variation. A living being assimilates inorganic matter, and shares with it its peculiar properties. Dead matter grows only by accretion, living matter by selective assimilation. A living being can reproduce itself; this is a power entirely foreign to anything else. A living being if killed cannot be made to live again; dissolution is destruction. In this it differs from the crystal, that standing illustration of the unbelievers, which can be dissolved and reproduced at pleasure. Inorganic substances have no identity apart from their constituent atoms, living beings maintain their identity in the constant change of their composition. The body of to-day is not the body of last year, but it is the same living being. The phenomena of carbon,

nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, when they appear in the organic world, differ entirely from their phenomena in the inorganic. Nor is the difference one of degree alone, but of kind also. When two elements unite to form a compound with properties unlike those of either, compound and components agree in showing only chemical properties; but these organic elements manifest properties not chemical but vital. What has bestowed upon these elements these high prerogatives? What has raised them to this upper plane? It is admitted that no chemist can do it; did they do it themselves? or is there a mystic chemist in that little cell, who is the author of these inimitable wonders?

The standing answer of the correlationists is that the peculiar chemical combination explains the facts. We may not be able to detect the molecular interactions, but there is no doubt that if we could do it, we should find a complete explanation of vitality in the properties of the chemical elements. These elements in certain combinations manifest chemical properties; in other combinations they manifest vital properties. This is the sum of the utterances on this subject.

We may note in passing, that, if this doctrine be true, there need be no further trouble to prove a correlation of the vital and physical forces, because life then would be only the sum of the functions and not a form of force at all. But is it true? If so, these identical combinations ought to result in the same form of life. Yet it is well known that the germ cells of many of the higher, and lower animals, and even of plants, are chemically the same. Now if chemical affinity is the only force at work here, how does it happen that these germs of similar composition develop into such diverse forms? It is said that difference of conditions determines the difference of result; but the answer is obvious. On this supposition the source of impregnation is a matter of indifference. An oak germ might become a man, and a human germ might become an acorn; in short, all males might interchange without affecting the result. The doctrine of the chemical identity of all organisms, is just the reason why we cannot believe that life is a form of affinity. How does it happen that the same atoms, with of course the same chemical properties, should go to build up forms so diverse, unless there be a builder there guiding the

is all that Mr. Huxley has to offer. One One might-have-been " and one "may-be" is the support of the great conclusion. We cannot allow him even this much, since, as he tells us that protoplasm may die and often is dead, it necessarily follows that protoplasm is not life. Pages of similar assertions and fancies might be gathered from the leading works on this subject, together with not a few contemptuous expressions about the believers in vitality. The odium theologicum is a favorite charge against the theologians; but it really seems as if there is an odium scientificum which is not one whit more honorable. Dr. Beale, one of the first microscopists of the day, in an essay on the Mystery of Life complains as follows: "It is indeed significant if as seems to be the case at this time in England, an investigator cannot be allowed to remark that the facts, which he has demonstrated, and phenomena, which he has observed, render it impossible for him to assent at present to the dogma, that life is a mode of ordinary force, without being held up by some who entertain opinions at variance with his own, as a person who desires to stop or retard investigation, who disbelieves in the correlation of the physical forces, and in the established truths of science."

Disregarding now all mere assertion and imagination, what is really proved in the premises?

A living organism manifests properties so different from those of inorganic matter that unless some plausible explanation can be found in the properties of the latter we must assume some peculiar power, some distinct cause to explain the variation. A living being assimilates inorganic matter, and shares with it its peculiar properties. Dead matter grows only by accretion, living matter by selective assimilation. A living being can reproduce itself; this is a power entirely foreign to anything else. A living being if killed cannot be made to live again; dissolution is destruction. In this it differs from the crystal, that standing illustration of the unbelievers, which can be dissolved and reproduced at pleasure. Inorganic substances have no identity apart from their constituent atoms, living beings maintain their identity in the constant change of their composition. The body of to-day is not the body of last year, but it is the same living being. The phenomena of carbon,

nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, when they appear in the organic world, differ entirely from their phenomena in the inorganic. Nor is the difference one of degree alone, but of kind also. When two elements unite to form a compound with properties unlike those of either, compound and components agree in showing only chemical properties; but these organic elements manifest properties not chemical but vital. What has bestowed upon these elements these high prerogatives? What has raised them to this upper plane? It is admitted that no chemist can do it; did they do it themselves? or is there a mystic chemist in that little cell, who is the author of these inimitable wonders?

The standing answer of the correlationists is that the peculiar chemical combination explains the facts. We may not be able to detect the molecular interactions, but there is no doubt that if we could do it, we should find a complete explanation of vitality in the properties of the chemical elements. These elements in certain combinations manifest chemical properties; in other combinations they manifest vital properties. This is the sum of the utterances on this subject.

We may note in passing, that, if this doctrine be true, there need be no further trouble to prove a correlation of the vital and physical forces, because life then would be only the sum of the functions and not a form of force at all. But is it true? If so, these identical combinations ought to result in the same form of life. Yet it is well known that the germ cells of many of the higher, and lower animals, and even of plants, are chemically the same. Now if chemical affinity is the only force at work here, how does it happen that these germs of similar composition develop into such diverse forms? It is said that difference of conditions determines the difference of result; but the answer is obvious. On this supposition the source of impregnation is a matter of indifference. An oak germ might become a man, and a human germ might become an acorn; in short, all males might interchange without affecting the result. The doctrine of the chemical identity of all organisms, is just the reason why we cannot believe that life is a form of affinity. How does it happen that the same atoms, with of course the same chemical properties, should go to build up forms so diverse, unless there be a builder there guiding the

atoms to their places? To ascribe the difference to "conditions" will not do; the difference of result necessitates a difference of cause. So far from life's being a function of affinity, it maintains itself in opposition to it. Organic compounds are in unstable equilibrium, which affinity is constantly trying to overset. This it does as soon as the life has gone, and quickly reduces the body to more stable inorganic compounds. What is it which resists? The chemical elements are all in the dead body; what has happened that function is performed no longer?

But what do the physical forces do in the body? We take food, which certainly does produce power, and does nourish the system is not this a correlation? To this the answer is that the physical forces are the working forces of the body; they are expended in labor and in the performance of function; but the preceding considerations render it impossible to look upon them as the organizing, constructive, or directive force of the system. This organizing force cannot indeed dispense with the physical forces as its servants, but there is no proof of correlation.

The only argument of any weight, which can be urged against this, is that of Maudsley; and that does not attack the justice of the reasoning, but is rather an appeal to inconceivability. He says:

Admitting that vital transforming matter is at first derived from vital structure, it is evident that the external force and matter transformed does in turn become transforming forcethat, is vital. And if that takes place after the vital process has once commenced, is it, it may be asked, extravagant to suppose that a similar transformation might, at some period, have commenced the process, and may be even now doing so?

* * * And the advocate of this view may turn upon his opponent and demand of him, how he, with due regard to the axiom that force is not self-generating, and to the fact that living matter does increase from the size of a little cell to the magnitude of a human body, accounts for the continual production of transforming power? A definite quantity only could have been derived from the mother structure, and that must have been exhausted at an early period of growth" (Body and Mind, p. 169).