ON SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 281 



only requiring a resting-place where they may be subject to 

 its influence : then, what reason is there that we should deny 

 organisms to it in its solid state ? It is still composed essen- 

 tially of the same substances as in its other states : I say 

 essentially, because in its fluid, or other states, it is often 

 contaminated by other extrinsic substances, which may form 

 a pabulum for some peculiar organism, which can only exist 

 when such contamination takes place. What reason then 

 can be assigned that we should assert immediately a vege- 

 table organism appears upon it when in the solid state, that 

 this owes its existence to spontaneous generation ? It is not 

 positively shown that they were without seeds or germs, al- 

 though it may be admitted that these were not observable ; 

 the reproduction of fungi is at present in such a state of 

 obscurity, that it would be extremely difficult for any botanist 

 to determine what are the germs in numberless species ; were 

 the fungi of the glacier proved to be germ less, — that they did 

 notpossess the faculty of reproduction, — then there would be 

 a resting-place or foundation for the doctrine. 



By the Doctor's manner of reasoning, when we find an 

 unknown organism in a situation where we expected to find 

 none, or observe a well-known one in an unusual habitat, 

 or at a considerable distance from its other known localities, 

 we are directly to ascribe a spontaneous generation to it; 

 surely this is a most unphilosophical mode of disposing of 

 the question, as direct a cutting of the Gordian knot as the 

 most dogmatical assertion of the contrary doctrine could pos- 

 sibly be. This is flying in the face of his own rule, which 

 is the only safe foundation for us to proceed upon ; let us, in 

 all disputed cases, leave ourselves open to conviction, and 

 search out for the truth with unbiassed minds, or at least 

 with a determination to avoid preconceived opinions, and to 

 take every fact into consideration, with its proper deductions, 

 and not to strain it, and by a tortuous mode of reasoning, try 

 to put a false construction upon it. There are very few, if any, 

 facts taken in support of the doctrine of equivocal genera- 

 tion, but what may as equally (and perhaps as justly) be used 

 to support the contrary opinion; for it is not the obvious 

 appearance of the organisms, whether vegetable or animal, 

 that is disputed, but the cause of their appearance. A known 

 organism appears in some unusual place, fi^om its previously 

 known habitats, or an unknown one is observed in some 

 locality never as yet minutely examined, or at least not made 

 known that it has been examined ; the advocates of sponta- 

 neous generation immediately say, that our doctrine is the 

 right one, is plainly evident, because here an organism has 



