188 DEFINITIONS. 



beings. But this I suspect to be a method of arrange- 

 ment quite as hable to objection, as that afforded by 

 the earlier and more popular distribution of Nature into 

 three kingdoms. In the first case we have indeed two 

 natural, but I fear somewhat arbitrary divisions of mat- 

 ter into organic and inorganic. This may appear para- 

 doxical. They are natural, because no person accus- 

 tomed to study the -.vorks of Nature can deny their hav- 

 ing a real existence ; but they are too strongly marked, 

 and even appear arbitrary, when we reflect that there is 

 nothing to show that some organized beings are not more 

 widely separated from others than they are from inorganic 

 matter. We have, besides, no reason to believe tliat the 

 vaiious forms of matter are not separated by other natural 

 chasms quite as distinct as those which separate organic 

 matter from inorganic. Those divisions so much insisted 

 on by Peter Ramus, which consist of two members, one 

 of which is contradictory to the other, are sure to be com- 

 plete, but unfortunately one or both are always too com- 

 prehensive ; and this appears to be in a peculiar manner 

 the fault of the division of matter into organic and inor- 

 ganic. No person denies the existence of this division in 

 nature, still less is the use of it to be despised ; but as there 

 are forms of inorganic matter to all appearance as distant 

 from each other as any organized being can be from an in- 

 organic one, it is evidently liable to be abused. This ob- 

 jection, though in a less degree, refers also to the division 

 of Nature into three kingdoms ; but the great fault of both 

 methods undoubtedly is the interposition of strongly marked 

 distinctions where they are generally if not always ob- 

 scure. Matter, whether organized or in a brute state, 

 whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, is very little if at all 



i 



