be any view that our limited comprehension can attain, seeing, as we ever 

 must in this life, ' as through a glass, darkly ; ' — how much will remain to 

 be revealed to us in that glorious future, when the Light of Truth shall 

 burst upon us in unclouded lustre, but when our mortal vision shall be 

 purified and strengthened so as to sustain its dazzling brilliancy." 



The import of this, and of several other passages in my work, 

 will depend upon the meaning assigned to the term Law of Nature. 

 That the readers of it might not misconceive my views, I have 

 taken care to explain, very early in the volume, the meaning which 

 I attach to it. A whole paragraph is employed on the subject in 

 the Chapter to which I have already referred, which is the first in 

 the " General Physiology" ; and, as this Chapter has received the 

 especial notice of the Reviewer, it is scarcely to be supposed that he 

 could accidentally overlook the passage. Moreover, this paragraph 

 is referred to in the Glossarial Index, as containing the explanation 

 of the term " Law of Nature." The last portion of it stands as 

 follows : — 



" To imagine that the plan of the Universe, once established with a 

 definite end, could require alteration, during the continuance of its exist- 

 ence, is at once to deny the perfection of the Divine attributes ; whilst, 

 on the other hand, to suppose, as some have done, that the properties first 

 impressed upon matter would of themselves continue its actions, is to deny 

 all that Revelation teaches us regarding our continued dependence on the 

 Creator. Let it be borne in mind, then, that when a law of Physics 

 or of Vitality is mentioned, nothing more is really implied than a simple 

 expression of the mode in which the Creator is constantly operating on 

 inorganic matter, or on organised structures." 



What shall be said of the good faith of a Reviewer who can im- 

 pute to me opinions diametrically opposite to those which I have 

 so broadly expressed, without quoting a single passage in support of 

 his assumption ? 



This portion of the charge against me, although the most import- 

 ant in itself, is not that on which the Reviewer dwells the longest. 

 The greater part of his animadversions are bestowed upon my 

 opinions on Life or Vital Action, which are spoken of as " leading 

 to dangerous conclusions" (p. 215), — as "highly exceptionable and 

 totally destitute of foundation" (p. 219), — as " tending to lead the 

 mind to the doctrines of materialism" (p. 219), — and as having 

 " been repeatedly refuted" (p. 217). These dangerous, often-refuted, 

 and baseless opinions may be briefly expressed in the two following 

 propositions: — 1. That Vital Phenomena are the result of the 

 properties of organised tissues, called into action (according to 

 regular laws) by the requisite conditions being afforded to the bodies 

 which possess them. 2. That these vital properties are not, as it is 

 commonly expressed, superadded to matter in the process of 

 organisation ; but that this act calls out or developes the properties 

 which previously existed in the material particles subjected to it, 

 but which are not manifested except under the peculiar circumstan- 

 ces which this new disposition of them produces. This act of 

 organisation always requires a pre-existing organism for its per- 

 formance. 



The first of these doctrines is held by almost every physiologist 

 of the present day ; and it is plainly stated by Dr. Alison in his 

 highly-philosophic " Outlines of Physiology" (3rd. Ed. pp. 7, 8). 

 It must be the second, therefore, which incurs the reprobation of the 

 Reviewer. Now it would scarcely be supposed, from the language 



