186 HEREDITY. 



a sound philosophy here. The writer founds an 

 accusation of pantheism upon a citation which ex- 

 pressly asserts the Divine transcendency over all 

 natural laws. As proof that it has been asserted 

 here that "natural law and God are one," he cpiotes 

 language which explicitly affirms that "He whom we 

 dare not name transcends all natural laws ; " that is, 

 that God and natural law are not one. I have in 

 my possession written proof that Agassiz made the 

 same suggestion concerning parthenogenesis as that 

 which was made here. Bishop Butler does not seem 

 to this writer orthodox company. He has no words 

 of respect for Beale or Ulrici or Lotze. He under- 

 rates very curiously the great value, in the conflict 

 with materialism, of the recent advances of knowl- 

 edge in the field of microscopical research concern- 

 ing living tissues. He overlooks entirely the dis- 

 tinction drawn here between life, vitality, and soul, 

 and then proceeds to make injurious inferences con- 

 sistent with this oversight. Not one important error 

 of biological fact is pointed out. He cites discus- 

 sions of a quarter of a century ago, to justify the 

 neglect of some of the most honored results of Ger- 

 man philosophy, based on new investigations of the 

 last twenty years. Even in this way of episode, 

 however, and by side blows with the left hand, I 

 am not about to defend myself ; for I need make no 

 reply to that attack, except this — read it. I could 

 put before you evidence here that every word this 

 lectureship has indorsed concerning the downfall of 

 Huxley's Bathybius as a biological celebrity is true. 



