sequence and a continuous whole? That this is a great question, a question involving large issues, will be seen by all who have familiarized themselves with the thought and fact of our times. But we must treat it purely as a question of science; it is not a question of _how_ life _first_ appeared upon the earth, it is only a question of whether there is any natural force _now_ at work building not-living matter into living forms. Nor have we to determine whether or not, in the indefinite past, the not-vital elements on the earth, at some point of their highest activity, were endowed with, or became possessed of, the properties of life. [Illustration: Fig. 1] On that subject there is no doubt. The elements that compose protoplasm--the physical basis of all living things--are the familiar elements of the world without life. The mystery of life is not in the elements that compose the vital stuff. We know them all, we know their properties. The mystery consists _solely_ in _how_ these elements can be so combined as _to acquire_ the transcendent properties of life. Moreover, to the investigator it is not a question of _by what means_ matter dead--without the shimmer of a vital quality--became either slowly or suddenly possessed of the properties of life. Enough for us to know that whatever the power that wrought the change, that power was competent, as the issue proves. But that which calm and patient research has to determine is whether matter demonstrably _not living_ can be, without the aid of organisms already living, endowed with the properties of life. Judged of hastily, and apart from the facts, it may appear to some minds that an origin of life from not-life, by sheer physical law, would be a great philosophical gain, an indefinitely strong support of the doctrine of evolution. If this were so, and, indeed, so far as it is believed to be so, it would speak and does speak volumes in favor of the spirit of science pervading our age. For although the vast majority of biologists in Europe and America accept the doctrine of evolution, they are almost unanimous in their refusal to accept as in any sense competent the reputed evidence of "spontaneous generation;" which demonstrates, at least, that what is sought by our leaders in science is not the mere support of hypotheses, cherished though they may be, but the truth, the uncolored truth, from nature. But it must be remembered that the present existence of what has been called "spontaneous generation," the origin of life _de novo_ to-day, by physical law, is by no means required by the doctrine of evolution. Prof. Huxley, for example, says: "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 upon the globe, as the result of no matter what agency; any further independent formation of protoplasm would be sheer waste." And why? we may ask. Because one of the