NEW POINT OF VIEW TAKEN UP. 385 



favour of this or that generalization that it is particularly 

 desired should be accepted now as if it had been demon- 

 strated fact and established law. 



I not only refuse to become a convert to prophetic 

 science, but I shall certainly do what I can to prevent 

 others from being misled by it. It is, however, to be 

 remarked, that the point of view taken up by me is peculiar, 

 and could hardly have been appreciated by others in 

 the absence of proof concerning the absolute distinction 

 between the living and non-living particle. The contrast 

 had not, indeed, been instituted by any one before the in- 

 vestigations referred to in Part II had been carried out. 

 It will now, I think, be admitted, that the differences be- 

 tween the living and the lifeless are, in truth, very great, 

 while the chasm by which they are separated has not been 

 bridged, nor is it at this time possible to bridge it. The 

 distinction between living and non-living is indeed absolute. 



Strauss, like most of those who agree with him, has 

 neither studied the phenomena peculiar to living matter, 

 nor the details of the structure of any living organism. And 

 it is not surprising that philosophical persons who were 

 obliged to take second-hand the information upon which 

 their reasoning was to be based, should have been unduly 

 influenced by the very positive method adopted by a domi- 

 nant scientific school boasting of extraordinary exactness, 

 but remarkable for the vagueness of its statements and the 

 careless, though dogmatic and often arrogant phraseology 

 in which its most important doctrines were enunciated. 

 Nothing can be more simple than to assert positively that 

 the living and lifeless must be governed by the same laws, but 

 the assertion has never been justified. And although it is 



2 c 



