wisdom or design, why should it not be
performed by living intelligent Nature? Gentlemen, demonstrate your
theory. Do you say, we have given up all hope of witnessing its
demonstration? Well, well, has any man ever witnessed it? You say no.
Then it is not certain knowledge. Science is certain knowledge.
Therefore spontaneous generation of life and intelligent being is not
science. Now, gentlemen, don't prostitute science at the shrine of your
nonsensical guessing any more. Throw your guessing to one side and
acknowledge God like wise men, and be no longer foolish.

Do you say life was always in matter? "Then we must conclude that it is
in matter in the same sense in which all other corporeal qualities are
in bodies, so as to be divisible together with it, and some of it be in
every part of the matter." This is ancient Hylozoism.

On the other hand, the "Stoical Atheists supposed there was one life
only in the entire mass of matter, after such a manner, as that none of
the parts of it by themselves should have any life of their own." Now,
according to this Stoical theory, "life is no corporeal quality or form,
but an incorporeal substance." There are, really, but two sorts of
Atheism which have been in any thing like extensive notice. First, "Such
as claim that life is essential to matter, and therefore _ingenerable_
and _incorruptible_." Second, "Those who claim that life and everything,
besides the bare substance of matter, or extended bulk, is merely
accidental, generable, or corruptible, rising out of some mixture or
modification of matter." Is life, perception and understanding
essential to matter, as such? Is senseless matter perfectly wise,
without consciousness? Such is Hylozoism, and it is outrageous nonsense.
Very few men ever had credulity enough to receive and appropriate it.
This form of Atheism was a forlorn and abandoned thing, without form or
systemization, for centuries gone by--and it has few--very
few--votaries, even now. The second kind of Atheism "is that of a true
notion of body, that it is nothing but resisting bulk," associated with
atomic physiology, which is an old theory resurrected of late, and
displayed anew, with a _show_ of deep philosophy and wisdom. But that
mind and understanding itself sprang from senseless nature and chance,
as a mere accident, or from the unguided and undirected motions of
matter, is also nonsensical, and utterly absurd. Were there infinite
atoms in mutual encounters