and also begins a series of investigations on the process of respiration, on the possible modes by which animal tissues may be consumed, and on the conditions that accelerate or retard the consumption. This is the first fibre of communication shot across the interval which separates empirical from scientific physiology; and though only a fibre, it is like the ice shooting from opposite sides of the stream, the first frail forerunner of a solid communication. Step by step the two processes go on, the one descending into details more and more artistically minute; the other departing more and more from its elementary compounds, until it succeeds at last in constructing a scheme of knowledge which shall not only explain the results, but serve as a guide for the evolution of a correct systematic practice.*

* The difference between the empirical and the scientific method is expressed with logical accuracy, as follows:

1. The empirical method manipulates those substantives (in any particular course of inquiry) which present the greatest comprehension.

2. The scientific method manipulates those substances which present the greatest extension.

Thus an animal frame comprehends the processes of combination, decomposition, respiration, the development of heat, &c., &c.; while the natural history of oxygen or carbon extends to all the objects in which oxygen and carbon are comprehended, although that natural history in reality comprehends nothing but its own series of phenomena.

The antagonism usually set forth as existing between the inductive and the deductive process of reasoning, is not only based on a misunderstanding of the methods of pure syllogistic, but absolutely opposed to the methods which are pursued in matters of induction. There is really only one process of reasoning, although this may be read in different manners. What is called the induc

And when once the two methods have come to an identity of result, (as they have in some of the mechanical arts, and as they may soon in some, branches of physiology, (a system of truth is developed for the world, for the human race, for humanity; not merely for the discoverers and improvers, but for man as man, for the human being tenanting the world, and gradually learning to read aright the universe, or cosmos, in which he finds himself placed. Man has made a new acquisition, and this new acquisition remains a permanent, stable, and lasting addition to the wealth of humanity.

But empirical physiology does not apply merely to

tive process of reasoning is only the inductive process of observing ; ́and when the observations are made, the reasonings are all made by the same process.

Let the logician apply to any man in the practical departments of life, and he will find him reasoning from a major premiss; which will be found to consist of two propositions, and not, as the Baconians affirm, of one, which has been inferred from many observations. For instance:

Major. In every case that I have given this food to my cattle, they have thriven well.

Minor. This is a new case, in which I give the same food to my cattle.

Consequent. Therefore they will thrive well, (the probability being greater or less according to circumstances.)

The Baconians divide the major premiss and call it a reasoning, whereas it is no more than an observation.

The essential difference, however, between the empirical and the scientific methods is this. the one classifies events, the other classifies substances. The empiric endeavors to find the law of the events; the man of science, the law of the substances; and in this light both pursue exactly the same method.

the organized or animated objects that man finds surrounding him. It applies to himself, and to the material conditions of his bodily frame. Of all animals, man is the most subject to disease, the most liable to be cut off from existence before his body has passed through its natural transformations, and at last sinks exhausted from the influence of age. History, however, proves that an immense amelioration has taken place even in this respect that man has extended the limits of his life-that he has intelligently constructed circumstances less fatal to his organism that he has diminished, and vastly diminished, his liability to dissolution — in fact, that he has to a certain extent beaten the evils of the physiological world, exactly as he has vanquished the difficulties of the mechanical world.*

* M. Moreau de Jonnés, in a notice on the mortality of Europe, has given the following table, which tends equally to prove the influence of civilization on the number of deaths:

QUETELET'S Calculation of Probabilities. Notes by Mr. Bea

mish. See the whole note, (v.) p. 114.

This improvement man owes to empirical physiol ogy, partly intentional and partly unintentional -partly to the exercise of a direct effort, and partly to the general amelioration of circumstances produced by the advance of civilization. Better clothing and better food better dwellings and a better system of drainage cleanliness, ventilation, and a more abundant supply of water-prompt treatment under acute disease, inoculation and vaccination the improvement of jails, workhouses, and all other prisons and similar abominations a more simple and natural mode of rearing children in fact, a better and more rational system of treating the human frame both individual and collective, and placing it in circumstances more conducive to its healthy function, has at last evolved a longer life, and secured to the general man a longer tenancy of terrestrial existence.

SECTION III.

APPLICATION OF THE THEORY OF PROGRESSION TO MAN'S POLITICAL CONDITION.

We have said enough, however, to show the direct bearing of science on the improvement of man's condition on the globe. Knowledge is obtained, an improved system of action is consequently generated, and from that improved system of action an improved condition arises as the necessary result.

But, then, how comes it that, notwithstanding man's vast achievements, his wonderful efforts of mechanical

ingenuity, and the amazing productions of his skill, his own condition in a social capacity should not have improved in the same ratio as the improvement of his condition with regard to the material world? In Britain, man has to a great extent beaten the material world. He has vanquished it, overpowered it; he can make it serve him; he can use not merely his muscles, but the very powers of nature, to affect his purposes; his reason has triumphed over matter; and matter's tendencies and powers are to a great extent subject to his will. And, notwithstanding this, a large portion of the population is reduced to pauperism, to that fearful state of dependence in which man finds himself a blot on the universe of God- a wretch thrown up by the waves of time, without a use and without an end, homeless in the presence of the firmament, and helpless in the face of the creation. Was it for this that the Almighty made man in his own image, and gave him the earth for an inheritance? Was it for this that he sent his Son into the world to proclaim the divine benevolence, to preach the doctrine of human brotherhood, and to lay the foundation of a kingdom that should endure forever and ever? We do not believe it; neither do we believe that pauperism comes from God. It is man's doing, and man's doing alone. God has abundantly supplied man with all the requisite means of support; and where he cannot find support, we must look, not to the arrangements of the Almighty, but to the arrangements of men, and to the mode in which they have portioned out the earth, To charge the poverty of man on God, is to blaspheme the Creator instead of bowing in reverent thankfulness