22 
very absurd to suppose that crystals assumed their definite shapes (when 
the liquid which held their molecules in solution is evaporated) under 
the determining impulse of phantom-crystals, or ideas ; yet it has not 
been thought absurd to assume phantom forms of organizations.” (p. 622.) 
Now, if we are to understand from this passage that the 
issue of an organism, whether merely an offspring similar to its 
parents, or the ultimate development of a new species alto- 
gether, is in any way to he compared to the production of a 
crystal from evaporation, the burden lies with Mr. Lewes to 
show that the causative momenta are analogous or are of similarly 
influencing power. In the one case there is life , in the other 
there is not. Life may be nothing more than physical forces, 
but no one will deny, as long as he can judge of it by its effects, 
i. e. as long as the organism under examination is alive, these 
effects do not justify us in saying that there is any analogy 
between them, or that they can be compared, any more than an 
organic cell admits of comparison with a crystal. 
Mr. Lewes goes on to say that “ the conception of type, as a 
determining influence arises from the fallacy of taking the 
resultant for a principle.” But is it a fallacy ? The whole 
question of final causes depends upon the answer to this ques- 
tion. Principles of nature are only deducible from resultants 
or facts ; and science can only reason from the known to the 
unknown. It is from the facts of nature that the principle of 
evolution has been deduced. The vera causa of evolution and 
which includes all types and plans, is placed, however, in dif- 
ferent directions by the teleologist and the positivist ; the 
latter, ignoring any determining influence, puts it in the hands 
of the “ momenta ” or “ polarities of the ^organic substance ” ; 
the former, recognizing some determining influence, places it 
in the hands of God. 
The positivist, however, does not attempt, as far as I can 
discover, to account for the “momenta” of nature; except as 
“ immanent properties.” But whence came they, on the prin- 
ciple of conservation of force ; what were their antecedents ? Are 
they self-existent, eternal ? But as this question opens up the 
deeper one as to whether God be Personal or Impersonal, 
whether force be eternal or not, & c., I must leave the matter 
there, only quoting one more sentence from Mr. Lewes, who 
says : “ Even Lotze, who has argued so victoriously against 
the vitalists, and has made it clear ( ? ) that an organism is a 
mechanism, cannot relinquish the conception of legislative ideas, 
though he significantly adds, these have no power in themselves, 
but only in as far as they are grounded in mechanical condi- 
tions.” Why “ significantly ” ? Surely we have here a wit- 
