g
vistas of time, the detected marvels of physiological structure, and
the rapid filling-in of the missing links in the chain of organic
life,' he falls, at another, into lamentation and mourning over the
very theory which renders 'organic life' 'a chain.' He claims the
largest liberality for his sect, and avows its contempt for the
dangers of possible discovery. But immediately afterwards he damages
the claim, and ruins all confidence in the avowal. He professes
sympathy with modern Science, and almost in the same breath he treats,
or certainly will be understood to treat, the Atomic Theory, and the
doctrine of the Conservation of Energy, as if they were a kind of
scientific thimble-riggery.

His ardour, moreover, renders him inaccurate causing him to see
discord between scientific men where nothing but harmony reigns. In
his celebrated Address to the Congress of German Naturforscher,
delivered at Leipzig, three years ago, Du Bois-Reymond speaks thus:
'What conceivable connection subsists between definite movements of
definite atoms in my brain, on the one hand, and on the other hand
such primordial, indefinable, undeniable, facts as these: I feel pain
or pleasure; I experience a sweet taste, or smell a rose, or hear an
organ, or see something red ... It is absolutely and for ever
inconceivable that a number of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen
atoms should be otherwise than indifferent as to their own position
and motion, past, present, or future. It is utterly inconceivable how
consciousness should result from their joint action.'

This language, which was spoken in 1872, Mr. Martineau 'freely'
translates, and quotes against me. The act is due to misapprehension.
Evidence is at hand to prove that I employed similar language twenty
years ago. It is to be found in the 'Saturday Review' for 1860; but
a sufficient illustration of the agreement between my friend Du
Bois-Reymond and myself, is furnished by the discourse on 'Scientific
Materialism,' delivered in 1868, then widely circulated, and reprinted
here. The reader who compares the two discourses will see that the
same line of thought is pursued in both, and that perfect agreement
reigns between my friend and me. In the very Address he criticises,
Mr. Martineau might have seen that precisely the same position is
maintained. A quotation will prove this: 'Thus far,' I say, 'our way
is clear, but now comes my difficulty. Your atoms are individually
wit