Oh, if this be star-eyed science, give us anything in place of it! Blear-eyed bigotry in his cloistered den, mumbling unintelligible prayers, and believing that man is to be saved, not by what he does, but by a _credo_ only, is far preferable to it. But oh, how unspeakably preferable the simple faith of the star-led Magi, who "Deeming the light that in the east was seen An earnest and a prophecy of rest To weary wanderers, such as they had been," came on that bleak December night, 1880 years ago, to pay their homage to the Christ-child--the long expected Messiah--the Redeemer of the world! Footnotes [1]: It may be proper, however, to state that the tenth and concluding chapter was originally written as a lecture, and delivered about a year ago in New Haven, Boston, and at other points. A request for its publication has induced the author to place it in this volume, with the portion referring to the Bible genesis omitted. It will be found germane to the general subject. [2]: "Without this latent presence of the 'I am,' all modes of existence in the external world flit before us as colored shadows, with no greater depth, root, or fixure, than the image of a rock hath in the gliding stream, or the rainbow on the fast-sailing rain storm."--_Coleridge's_ "_Comments on Essays_." [3]: And science that is not purely inductive--i.e. primarily based on the inviolability of our intuitions--is no science at all, but the sheerest possible speculation. [4]: This presence of an active living principle in nature, one originally assigned as the "_divina particula auræ_" of every living thing, is frequently referred to in the higher inspirational moods of our poets. Wordsworth exquisitely refers to it in the following lines of his "Excursion:"-- "To every form of being is assigned An _active_ principle: howe'er removed From sense and observation, it subsists In all things, in all nature, in the stars Of azure heaven, the unenduring clouds; In flower and tree, in every pebbly stone That paves the brooks." [5]: The existence of vital units is conceded by some of the staunchest materialists, such as Herbert Spencer, Professor Bastian and others. Professor Bastian says: "The countless myriads of living units which have been evolved in different ages of the world's history, must, in each period, have given rise to innumerable multitudes of what have been called 'trees of life.'" He insists, however, that they have been "evolved" from something, or by some unknown process. But we shall show further on that a "unit" can neither be _evolved_ nor _involved_, and that this is as true of vital units as of the mathematical or chemical unit. Neither evolution nor involution will ever effect the value of a unit.