that at certain periods in the development of the earth, unusual conditions existed under which the elements, entering into new combinations, acquired, in statu nascente, vital motions, so that the usual mechanical conditions were transformed into vital conditions."

After all this, is there any "reflecting," "unprejudiced " person who cannot see that there are no other forces in nature besides the physical, chemical, and mechanical," and that plant and animal "organisms must also have been produced by these forces," and that there is abundant reason to think chemistry can make "all the complicated molecules of life?”

5. Natural Laws.-These, as "facts," are called in and freely used to explain the phenomena of living beings. By a surprisingly large number of persons it seems to be entirely sufficient to refer such phenomena and others, in part or in whole, to "natural laws." But what are natural laws? In answer to this question we might fill page after page with extracts from dozens of writers of the highest respectability who would substantially agree with the following: "The natural laws are rude, unbending powers."- Vogt. "Laws of nature act mechanically."Büchner. "The cosmos an assemblage of natural laws."-Büchner. "Laws act;" "Law does; "Laws are free to act;" "Law does it;" "Laws will not permit it," etc. No forms of expression are more common than these, and, soberly speaking, could be further from the truth.

Of all the subterfuges that have been resorted to, or self-impositions we have met with, this is perhaps the shallowest. A moment's unprejudiced reflection, it would seem, should be sufficient to dispel the illusion that a law is any thing, or can do any thing. What is a law, whether "natural" or otherwise, except the mere uniform mode or manner in which an agent acts or event occurs? A law is nothing, and does or can do nothing. It is the worst possible abuse of language to speak scientifically of a law doing any thing. Some might try to excuse themselves on rhetorical grounds; but we apprehend very few would be found who could not see the wide persons difference there is, and must be, between the rhetorical and scientific use of language.

6. Dr. Carpenter's Reductio ad Absurdum. - We now turn to the paper by Dr. Carpenter, contained in the volume

of Professor Youmans, already so often alluded to. It is marked by that clearness and admirable spirit that characterize all his highly instructive and suggestive writings. There is but one point in the paper peculiarly worthy of notice in our present case. It is set forth in the following quotations:

...

Speaking of vital force, he says: "The prevalent opinion has until lately been, that this power is inherent in the germ, which has been supposed to derive from its parent, not merely its material substance, but a nisus formativus-Bildungstreib or germ force, in virtue of which it builds itself up into the likeness of its parent, and maintains itself in that likeness until the force is exhausted, at the same time imparting a fraction of it to each of its progeny. In this mode of viewing the subject, all the organizing force required to build up an oak or a palm, an elephant or a whale, must be concentrated in a minute particle only discernible by microscopic aid; and the aggregate of all the germ forces appertaining to the descendants, however numerous, of a common parentage, must have existed in their original progenitors. . . . And, in like manner, the germ force which has organized the bodies of all the individual men that have lived, from Adam down to the present day, must have been concentrated in the body of their common ancestor. A more complete reductio ad absurdum can scarcely be brought against any hypothesis, and we may consider it proved, that in some way or other fresh organizing force is being constantly supplied from without during the whole period of its activity. When we look carefully into the question, however, we find that what the germ really supplies is not the force, but the directive agency; thus rather resembling the control exercised by the superintendent builder, who is charged with working out the design of the architect, than the bodily force of the workmen, who labor under his guidance in the construction of the fabric." "The actual constructive force, as we learn from an extensive survey of the phenomena of life, is supplied by heat."-Carpenter, (Youmans,) pp. 411, 412. The real point at issue is clearly set forth in this extract. In each living germ Dr. Carpenter admits "constructive force " and "directive agency." These are not identical. Let us examine each in turn.

(1.) "Organizing" or "constructive force.' constructive force." What is it?

Dr. Carpenter says it is "supplied by heat; or, better still," the correlation between heat and the organizing force of plants is not less intimate than that which exists between heat and motion."-Ibid., p. 420.

In regard to this last statement we must really suspend judg ment until we can learn what kind of a correlation is possible between heat and motion! We are still so obtuse as not to see how such a thing can be. (See January Quarterly, p. 18, et seq.) This constructive agency, we must steadily bear in mind, comes from without, and is transformed heat. What is meant by a constructive force? Why, a force that constructs. It is like unto the "workmen" who take and lay the bricks, mortar, etc., and, in short, construct the house. The superintendent or "directive" agent does not "construct, he simply directs." What is this transformed or disguised heat understood to construct? Nothing less than the surpassingly complex and wonderful organisms called plants and animals. If it requires intelligent workmen--namely, "constructive force ". to build a house or a bridge, how much less intelligent shall the workmen be that builds the human body? That the human body is built up, "organized," no one, it seems, could deny. Neither can it be denied that it is a more wonderful structure than any that man ever made, or sane man could pretend to make, nor that a very high degree of intelligence is exhibited in its construction. But the actual "constructive force" is transformed heat. Plan or purpose is clearly manifested in the human body and its construction. This impersonal "constructive force" must be able to understand this plan in order to obey the behests of the equally impersonal directive agency. Can we escape the obvious dilemma in which such considerations place us? We must admit one of two things. Either the "constructive force" is intelligent, rational, or an unintelligent agent performs a work, in doing which intelligence of a high order would seem to be a necessary condition. This is not the place to trace the two paths pointed out, even to their more obvious consequences. We hope to do this hereafter. If we admit that constructive force is vital force, what clear evidence have we that heat really supplies it of such kind that it may be legitimately compared to men working under a director or superintendent? Not any

that we know of. That heat is in some way necessary to the germination of seeds and growth of plants, and the hatching of eggs or growth and life of animals, there can be no doubt. That the heat is taken up, transformed, and used in some way, there can be no question. But that heat generates vital force, though it is used in construction, there is no real proof whatever.

But we do not understand Dr. Carpenter to insist that "constructive force" is vital force. This is more properly set down to the credit of "directive agency." This latter is the vital force of the germ. The proof might be never so clear that "constructive force " is transformed heat; but unless it is shown that constructive and vital force are identical, we have not advanced a single step. We are quite willing to surrender "constructive force" for the present to the reductio ad absurdum of Dr. Carpenter.

(2.) Let us now turn for a moment to the "directive agency." It seems to us, if Dr. Carpenter had only looked a little more "carefully into the question," he would have seen that his directive agency is exposed to his reductio ad absurdum just the same as his "organizing force." Where does the offspring get its "directive agency "unless from the parent? As with the "organizing force," so with the "directive agency." The primitive stock with which the race began --which Adam divided with Cain and Abel, not to mention Eve, and so on down to Dr. Carpenter-would be exhausted as surely in the one case as in the other. The voracious reductio ad absurdum which Dr. Carpenter has turned loose, eats up indiscriminately both "organizing force" and and "directive agency." All the vital force is transformed heat or none. What shall be done? It seems to us there are only three positions that can be taken. They are:

(a.) To disavow the reductio ad absurdum. But this does not seem possible.

(b.) To surrender our "directive agency" to it, as well as organizing force," and thus set both down as transformed heat-transformed by we know not what-or,

(c.) To admit that "directive agency," at least, is supplied from some unacknowledged source.

As regards these three positions, we may dismiss the first FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXIV.—27

without ceremony. We may unhesitatingly yield something to the reductio ad absurdum, but it remains yet to be proved that it is vital force; and if so, where is the proof of the correlation between. heat and vital force?

As regards the second, if it should be assumed, we would be obliged to face a host of consequences of which the following is only a partial list :

. First. It makes all depend on heat, or some equivalent form of physical force.

Second. It does away virtually with "directive agency," and abandons the whole field to " organizing force," without intelligent direction to do a work bearing the clearest marks of a high degree of intelligence.

Third. It proposes effects that wholly transcend their assumed causes.

Fourth. It is in direct opposition to facts.

Fifth. It is not directly supported, we venture to remark, by one indubitable fact.

one.

As regards the third position, we believe it to be the true Its full statement and support we reserve for a future occasion. This point, to which we have been led by our analysis of Dr. Carpenter's case, we regard as the principal one in the present essay, and to be the one from which a constructive or positive review should take its departure. In it the nodus of the whole question lies. But we dismiss it for the present, to conclude our examination of other branches of evidence relied on to prove there is a correlation between the physical and vital forces similar to that known to exist between the physical forces themselves. In a former article we divided the evidence referred to into three kinds: I. FACTS. II. ANALOGIES. III. ASSERTIONS AND IMAGININGS. terminate our survey of evidence of the first kind.

Here we

We believe that in our examination we have exhausted the catalogue of "facts" in kind, though not numerically so. But we venture to say, no facts are on record stronger than those we have just examined. We have no hesitancy in making this assertion, nor in facing any of its consequences. We will not say a correlation of the physical, vital, and mental forces may not "some day "-or in some other way-be shown; but we do say, the first clear step has yet to be taken in that di