368 OBSERVATIONS ON SPONTANEOUS 



part to which it was attached ? We know of no instance where 

 it ever has been observed to have the least vitahty after 

 separation : if a large piece has been severed, it has a little 

 muscular contraction, which continually decreases, until, in a 

 short time, it entirely ceases ; then from what argument can 

 , we suppose a part that is severed internally, should possess an 

 independent life, so as to form an organized being? 



But what does Burraeister mean by using the expression, 

 "universally distributed organizable matter" being the parent 

 of the germs of new organisms? I always understood that 

 organizable matter meant matter that could be taken by an 

 organized being, and by its nutritive system assimilated into 

 itself, to supply the continued waste of its parts. I have 

 never yet heard that it supplied any part of the vitality of the 

 being : when the vital principle stops, the whole system stops 

 with it: the organism may be surrounded with innumerable 

 quantities of organizable matter, yet it will not be revivified; 

 or, if by any means its nutritive system is I'endered incapable 

 of duly performing its operations, it may take what quantity of 

 organizable matter it pleases, without receiving any benefit 

 from it, until at last it dies, notwithstanding its supply of 

 organizable matter. This is a convincing proof that there 

 resides no vitality in matter, however highly it may be capable 

 of being organized. Certainly there is an organizable matter 

 generally distributed, but then it never was endued with 

 vitality since the Almighty called the type of every being into 

 existence. Burmeister seems not to have distinguished be- 

 tween the vital principle, and the matter of which an organized 

 being is composed. We cannot assume that the vitality of an 

 organized being resides in any of its parts separate from the 

 other, because an injury, whether by sudden violence or long- 

 continued disease, in any of its chief functions, so as to stop 

 its operations, will produce equally fatal results : though the 

 chemical composition of its parts remains the same as during 

 life, it then becomes subject to the laws of inanimate matter. 

 If, therefore, we cannot predicate life of any of the separate 

 parts of which a being is composed, how can we assume that 

 the sweat, or any other secretion, (one particular one excepted, 

 which is diametrically opposed to the doctrine,) can give origin 

 to any germ ? As we descend in the scale of animated nature 

 below insects, we find some beings capable of propagating 



