{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30429/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30429","id":"gutenberg_30429","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30429","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Creation","Evolution","Human beings -- Origin","Natural selection"],"text":"[Illustration: FOSSIL MAN OF MENTONE. (From Popular Science Monthly,\nOctober, 1874.)]\n\n\n\n\nWAS MAN CREATED?\n\nBY\n\nHENRY A. MOTT, JR., E.M., PH.D., ETC.,\n\n\n_Member of the American Chemical Society, Member of the Berlin Chemical\nSociety, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences, Member of the\nAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, Member of the\nAmerican Pharmaceutical Association, Fellow of the Geographical Society,\nEtc., Etc._\n\n\nAUTHOR OF THE \"CHEMISTS' MANUAL,\" \"ADULTERATION OF MILK,\" \"ARTIFICIAL\nBUTTER,\" \"TESTING THE VALUE OF RIFLES BY FIRING UNDER WATER,\" ETC., ETC.\n\n\n  NEW YORK:\n  GRISWOLD & COMPANY,\n  150 NASSAU STREET.\n  1880.\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT BY\n  HENRY A. MOTT, JR.,\n  1880.\n\n\n  TROW'S\n  PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING CO.,\n  _205-213 East 12th St._,\n  NEW YORK.\n\nElectrotyped by SMITH & MCDOUGAL, 82 Beekman Street, N. Y.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThis work was originally written to be delivered as a lecture; but as\nits pages continued to multiply, it was suggested to the author by\nnumerous friends that it ought to be published in book-form; this, at\nlast, the author concluded to do. This work, therefore, does not claim\nto be an exhaustive discussion of the various departments of which it\ntreats; but rather it has been the aim of the author to present the more\ninteresting observations in each department in as concise a form as\npossible. The author has endeavored to give credit in every instance\nwhere he has taken advantage of the labors of others. This work is not\nintended for that class of people who are so absolutely certain of the\ntruth of their religion and of the immortality that it teaches, that\nthey have become unqualified to entertain or even perceive of any\nscientific objection; for such people may be likened unto those who,\n\"_Seeing, they see, but will not perceive; and hearing, they hear, but\nwill not understand._\"\n\nThis work is written for the man of culture who is seeking for\ntruth--believing, as does the author, that all truth is God's truth, and\ntherefore it becomes the duty of every scientific man to accept it;\nknowing, however, that it will surely modify the popular creeds and\nmethods of interpretation, its final result can only be to the glory of\nGod and to the establishment of a more exalted and purer religion. All\nfacts are truths; it consequently follows that all scientific facts are\ntruths--there is no half-way house--a statement is either a truth or it\nis not a truth, according to the _law of non-contradiction_. If,\ntherefore, we find tabulated amongst scientific facts (or truths) a\nstatement which is not a fact, it is not science; but all statements\nwhich are facts it naturally follows are truths, and as such must be\naccepted, no matter how repulsive they may at first seem to some of our\npoetical imaginings and pet theories. We cannot help but sympathize with\nthe feelings which prompted President Barnard to write the following\nlines, still we will see he was too hasty: \"Much as I love truth in the\nabstract,\" he says, \"I love my hope of immortality more.\" * * * He\nmaintained that it is better to close one's eyes to the evidences than\nto be convinced of the _truth_ of certain doctrines which _he regards_\nas subversive of the fundamentals of Christian faith. \"If this (is all)\nis the best that science can give me, then I pray no more science. Let\nme live on in my simple ignorance, as my fathers lived before me; and\nwhen I shall at length be summoned to my final repose, let me still be\nable to fold the drapery of my couch about me, and lie down to pleasant,\neven though they be deceitful, dreams.\"[1] The limitations to the\nacceptance of truth that President Barnard makes is wrong; for, as\nProfessor Winchell has said, \"we think it is a higher aspiration to wish\nto know 'the truth and the whole truth.' At the same time, we have not\nthe slightest apprehension that the whole truth can ever dissipate our\nfaith in a future life.\"[2] Let us \"Prove all things and hold fast unto\nthat which is good,\" recognizing the fact that \"the truth-seeker is the\nonly God-seeker.\"\n\n  AUTHOR\n  JANUARY 25, 1880.\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n                                         PAGE\n\n  PREFACE                               v, vi\n\n  CHART OF MAN'S DEVELOPMENT            10-13\n\n  PROTOPLASM                               18\n\n  CELLS                                    20\n\n  LIFE                                     22\n\n  VITAL FORCE                              24\n\n  ANALYSIS OF MAN                          26\n\n  UNITY OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC NATURE    28\n\n  SPONTANEOUS GENERATION                   30\n\n  THE COMING INTO EXISTENCE OF MAN         33\n\n  EVOLUTION                                58\n\n  THEORIES OF THE WORLD'S FORMATION        64\n\n  THE BIBLE                                70\n\n  KANT'S COSMOGONY                     76, 86\n\n  NATURE A PERPETUAL CREATION              82\n\n  LAWS OF EVOLUTION                        90\n\n  SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST                  92\n\n  RUDIMENTARY ORGANS                       94\n\n  REPRODUCTION BY MEANS OF EGGS            99\n\n  DOUBLE-SEXED INDIVIDUALS                 99\n\n  INHERITANCE                             100\n\n  ARTIFICIAL MONSTERS                     106\n\n  ACQUIRED QUALITIES                      106\n\n  GEOLOGICAL RECORD                       108\n\n  ONTOGENY                                110\n\n  THE ATTRIBUTES OF MAN                   115\n\n  MUSCULAR FORCE                          116\n\n  THOUGHT FORCE                           118\n\n  THE ATTRIBUTES OF ANIMALS               122\n\n  THE ATTRIBUTES OF A SAVAGE              126\n\n  LANGUAGE                                128\n\n  FAITH                                   130\n\n  TRUE CONSCIENCE                         132\n\n  BELIEF IN GOD                           136\n\n  PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD           138\n\n  UNITY OF ALL NATURE                     140\n\n  SOUL                                    143\n\n  THE FINITE SENSES OF MAN                144\n\n  THE UNSEEN UNIVERSE                     148\n\n  MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD                   150\n\n  HOPE OF IMMORTALITY                 142-151\n\n\n\n\nWAS MAN CREATED?\n\n\n\n\nHAECKEL'S CHART OF MAN'S DEVELOPMENT, Arranged by HENRY A. MOTT, Jr.,\nPh. D.\n\n  =9. Americans.= (_Indians._)\n       |\n       |         Esquimaux.\n       |             |\n       |       HYPERBOREANS.                        Magyars.\n       |                                                |\n       |       =8. Arctic Men.=                           |\n       |             |                                Fins.\n       +------+------+                                  |\n              |       Tungusians.  Calmucks. Tartars.   |    Samoides.\n              |           |            |       |        |      |\n              +-----------+-------+----+-------+        +---+--+\n                                  |                         |\n                              Altaians.                  Uralians.\n                                  |                         |\n                                  +-----------------+-------+\n          Japanese.   Chinese.         Siamese.     |\n              |           |     Tibet.    |         |\n              |           |       |       |    Ural-Altaians.\n           Coreans.       +-------+-------+         |\n              |                   |                 |\n              |             Indo-Chinese.           |\n       Coreo-Japanese.            |                 |\n              |                   |                 |\n              +----+--------------+-----------------+\n                   |                                Indo-Germanians.\n                   |             Semites.   Basques.       |    Caucasians.\n                   |                |          |           |            |\n                   |                +----------+--+--------+------------+\n                   |                              |\n                   |                     =12. Mediteranese.=\n                   |                              |\n                   |                   Singalese. |    Fulatians.\n                   |                       |      |        |\n                   |                    DECCANS.  |    DONGOLESE.\n                   |                              |\n                   |               =10. Dradidas.=  |  =11. Nubians.=\n                   |                      |       |        |\n                   |                      +----+--+--------+\n                   | Polynesians.              |\n                   |      |   Madagascars.   Euplocomi.     =4. Negroes.=\n                   |      |         |          |                  |\n                   |      +-----+---+          |    =3. Kaffirs.= |\n                   |            |              |         |        |\n                   |      Sundanesians.        |         +---+----+\n                   |            |              |             |\n             =7. Mongols=    =6. Malays=           |         ERIOCOMI.\n                   |            |              |             |\n                   +------------+--------------+             |\n                    Promalays.                =2. Hottentots=|\n                       |           =1. Papuans.=       |     |\n                       | =5. Australians.= |           |     |\n                       |     |           +---+-------+       |\n                       +--+--+               |               |\n                          |                  |               |\n                      EUTHYCOMI.        LOPHOCOMI.           |\n                          |                  |               |\n                          |                  +----+----------+\n                          |                       |\n              LISSOTRICHI (_straight-haired_)  ULOTRICHI (_woolly-haired_).\n                          |                       |\n                          +------------+----------+\n                                       |\n                                 =ALALI= (_speechless men_).\n                          =PITHECANTHROPI= (_ape-like men_).\n                                       |\n                                       V\n\n\n                                           |\n                                     PRIMEVAL MEN.\n                                           |\n                                           |      Satyrus\n      Engeco         Gorilla               |     (_Orang_).   Hylobates\n  (_Chimpanzee_).  (_Gorilla_).            |         |       (_Gibbon_).\n        |               |                  |         |            |\n        +---------------+                  +---------+------------+\n               |                                     |\n            African                               Asiatic\n      (_Man-like Apes_).                     (_Man-like Apes_).\n               |                                     |\n               +-------------------------------------+\n                                   |\n                                   |                            Nasalis\n                            ANTHROPOIDES      Semnopithecus  (_Nose Apes_).\n                         (_Man-like Apes_).   (_Tall Apes_).      |\n                                   |                |             |\n                                   |                +-------------+\n                                   |                        |\n  Arctopitheci     Labidocera      |  Cercopithecus    Cynocephalus\n  (_Silk-Apes_). (_Clutch-tails_). |   (_Sea-Cat_).     (_Pavian_).\n       |                |          |        |               |\n       +----------------+          +--------+---------------+\n               |                                |\n           Aphyocera                  Catarrhina Menocerca\n        (_Flap-tails_).           (_Tailed, Narrow-nosed Apes_).\n\n           Platyrhin\u00e6                      Catarrhin\u00e6\n      (_Flat-nosed Apes_).              (_Narrow-nosed_).\n               |                                |\n               +--------------------------------+\n                               |\n                             Simi\u00e6\n                           (_Apes_).     Brachytarsi\n                               |         (_Lemurs_).\n                               |              |\n                               +--------------+\n                  Proboscidea         |                      Pinnipedia\n                 (_Elephants_).       |                  (_Marine Animals\n     Lamnungia        |               |                       of Prey_).\n  (_Rock-Conies_).    |               |    Nycterides             |\n        |             |               |     (_Bats_).         Carnivora\n        +-------------+               |        |           (_Land Animals\n               |                      |     Pterocynes        of Prey_).\n          Chelophora                  | (_Flying Foxes_).         |\n      (_Pseudo-hoofed_).              |        |              Carnaria\n               |                      |     Chiroptera       (_Animals\n           Rodentia                   | (_Flying Animals_).   of Prey_).\n     (_Gnawing Animals_).             |        |                  |\n               |                      |        +------------------+\n               |      Leptodactyla    |                  |\n               |      (_Fingered      |             Insectivora\n               |        Animals_).    |          (_Insect Eaters_).\n               |           |          |                  |\n               +-----------+          |                  |\n                     |                |                  |\n                     +----------------+------------------+\n                                                   |\n                                               PROSIMI\u00c6\n\n\n  Sarcoceta (_True Whales_).               PROSIMI\u00c6 (_Brought forward_,)\n        |                                       (_Semi-Apes_).\n  Sirenia (_Sea-Cows_).\n  Cetacea (_Whales_).\n        |\n      Ungulata                 Edentata                   Deciduata\n  (_Hoofed Animals_).      (_Poor in teeth_).       (_Deciduous Animals_).\n        |                         |                             |\n        +--------+----------------+                             |\n                 |                                              |\n            Indeciduous                                         |\n           (_Indeciduata_).                                     |\n                 |                                              |\n                 +-------------------------------------+--------+\n                                                       |\n                                                  PLACENTALIA\n                                              (_Placental Animals_).\n                                                       |\n                       Marsupialia                     |        Marsupialia\n                       Botanophaga                     |          Zoophaga\n                      (_Herbivorous_                   |     (_Carnivorous_\n                       _Marsupials_).                  |     _Marsupials_).\n                            |                          |             |\n                            +--------------------------+-------------+\n                                                       |\n              Ornithostoma                       Marsupialia\n            (_Beaked Animals_).                    (_Marsupial_).\n                   |                                   |\n                   +---------------------------+-------+\n                                               |\n                                    PROMAMMALIA (_Glacal Animals_).\n\n                                                      MAMMALIA (_Mammals_).\n                                   Aves (_Birds_).                |\n                                        |                         |\n                                Reptilia (_Reptiles_).            |\n                                        |                         |\n                                        +---------------+---------+\n                                                        |\n    Teleostei                Halisauria                 |\n  (_Osseous Fish_).           (_Sea-Dragons_).  Amniota (_Amnion Animals_).\n       |          Dipneusta      |                      |\n       |         (_Mud-Fish_).   |            Amphibia (_Batrachians_).\n    Ganoidei          |          |                      |\n  (_Ganoid Fish_).      +----------+-------+--------------+\n       |                                 |\n       |                          Amphipneumones\n       |             (_Vertebrate Animals, breathing through lungs_).\n       |                                 |\n       +--+------------------------------+\n          |\n  SELACHII (_Primeval Fish_).\n          |\n       PISCES\n      (_Fishes_).\n          |\n          |\n     Amphirrhina                                             Cyclostoma\n  (_Double Nostrils_).                                   (_Round-mouthed_).\n          |                                                       |\n          +----------------------------------------------+--------+\n                                                         |\n                                                    Monorrhina\n                                               (_Single-nostriled_).\n\n                                                     Craniota\n                                              (_Animals with Skulls_).\n                                  Leptocardia            |\n                               (_Tube-hearted_).         |\n                                       |                 |\n     Thaliacea.                        +--------+--------+\n  (_Sea-Barrels_).     Ascidi\u00e6.                 |\n         |                |                  Acrania\n         +--------+-------+           (_Skull-less Animals_).\n                  |\n              Tunicata                      Vertebrata\n        (_Tunicate Animals_).         (_Vertebrate Animals_).\n                  |                             |\n                  +-------------------+---------+\n                                      |\n                                    Vermes\n                                  (_Worms_).\n                                      |\n                      Zoophytes       |\n                  (_Animal Trees_).   |\n                          |           |\n                          +-----+-----+\n                                |\n                            Protozoa\n                      (_Primeval Animals_).\n\n                          ANIMAL MONERA.\n                                |\n                                |\n  VEGETABLE MONERA.             |            NEUTRAL MONERA.\n          |                     |                   |\n          +---------------------+-------------------+\n                                |\n                        ARCHIGONIC MONERA\n  (_Pieces of Protoplasm which have originated by Spontaneous Generation._)\n\n\n\n\nWAS MAN CREATED?\n\nWHAT SCIENCE CAN ANSWER.\n\n\n\"The object of science is not to find out what we like or what we\ndislike--the object of science is Truth.\" In the discussion of the\nsubject, \"_Was Man Created?_\" our object will be--not to study the many\nways God might have created him, but the way he actually did create him,\nfor all ways would be alike easy to an Omnipotent Being.\n\nLet us look at man and ask the question: What is there about him which\nwould need an independent act of creation any more than about the\n\"mountain of granite or the atom of sand\"? The answer comes back:\nBesides life, man has many mental attributes. Let us direct our\nattention at first to the grand phenomena of life, and then to man's\nattributes.\n\nTo discover the nature of life, to find out what life really is, it\nwould be folly to commence by comparing man, the perfection of living\nbeings, with an inorganic or inanimate substance like a brick, to\ndiscover the hidden secret; for, as Professor Orton says:[3] \"That only\nis essential to life which is common to all forms of life. Our brains,\nstomach, livers, hands and feet are luxuries. They are necessary to make\nus human, but not living beings.\" Instead of man, then, it will be\nnecessary for us to take the simplest being which possesses such a\nphenomena; and such are the little homogeneous specks of protoplasm,\nconstituting the Group _Monera_, which are entirely destitute of\nstructure, and to which the name \"Cytode\" has been given. In the fresh\nwaters in the neighborhood of Jena minute lumps of protoplasm were\ndiscovered by Haeckel, which, on being examined under the most powerful\nlens of a microscope, were seen to have no constant form, their outlines\nbeing in a state of perpetual change, caused by the protrusion from\nvarious parts of their surface of broad lobes and thick finger-like\nprojections, which, after remaining visible for a time, would be\nwithdrawn, to make their appearance again on some other part of the\nsurface. To this little mass of protoplasm Haeckel has given the name\n_Protan\u00e6ba primitiva_. These little lumps multiply by spontaneous\ndivision into two pieces, which, on becoming dependent, increase in size\nand acquire all the characteristics of the parent. From this\nillustration, it will be seen that \"reproduction is a form of nutrition\nand a growth of the individual to a size beyond that belonging to it as\nan individual, so that a part is thus elevated into a (new) whole.\"\n\nIt is to this simple state of the monera the _fertilized_ egg of any\nanimal is transformed--the germ vesicle; the original egg kernel\ndisappears, and the parent kernel (cytococcus) forms itself anew; and it\nis in this condition, a non-nucleated ball of protoplasm, a true cytod,\na homogeneous, structureless body, without different constituent parts,\nthat the human child, as well as all other living beings, take their\nfirst steps in development. No matter how wonderful this may seem, the\nfact stares us in the face that the entire human child, as well as every\nanimal with all their great future possibilities, are in their first\nstage a small ball of this complex homogeneous substance. Whether we\nconsider \"a mere infinitesimal ovoid particle which finds space and\nduration enough to multiply into countless millions in the body of a\nliving fly, and then of the wealth of foliage, the luxuriance of flower\nand fruit which lies between this bald sketch of a plant and the\ngigantic pine of California, towering to the dimensions of a cathedral\nspire, or the Indian fig which covers acres with its profound shadow,\nand endures while nations and empires come and go around its vast\ncircumference,\" or we look \"at the other half of the world of life,\npicturing to ourselves the great finner whale, hugest of beasts that\nlive or have lived, disporting his eighty or ninety feet of bone,\nmuscle, and blubber, with easy roll, among the waves in which the\nstoutest ship that ever left dock-yard would founder hopelessly, and\ncontrast him with the invisible animalcule, mere gelatinous specks,\nmultitudes of which could in fact dance upon the point of a needle with\nthe same ease as the angels of the schoolman could in imagination;--with\nthese images before our minds, it would be strange if we did not ask\nwhat community of form or structure is there between the fungus and the\nfig-tree, the animalcule and the whale? and, _\u00e0 fortiori_, between all\nfour? Notwithstanding these apparent difficulties, a threefold\nunity--namely, a unity of power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity\nof substantial composition--does pervade the whole living world.\"[4] And\nthis unit is Protoplasm. So we see it is necessary for us to retreat to\nour protoplasm as a naked formless plasma, if we would find freed from\nall non-essential complications the agent to which has been assigned the\nduty of building up structure and of transforming the energy of lifeless\nmatter into the living. Even Goethe (in 1807) almost stated this when he\nsaid: \"Plants and animals, regarded in their most imperfect condition,\nare hardly distinguishable. This much, however, we may say, that from a\ncondition in which plant is hardly to be distinguished from animal,\ncreatures have appeared, gradually perfecting themselves in two\nopposite directions--the plant is finally glorified into the tree,\nenduring and motionless; the animal into the human being of the highest\nmobility and freedom.\"\n\nLet us examine for a moment this substance Protoplasm, and see in what\nway it differs from inorganic matter, or in what way the animate differs\nfrom the inanimate--the living from the dead.\n\nFelix Dujardin, a French zoologist (1835) pointed out that the only\nliving substance in the body of rhizopods and other inferior primitive\nanimals, is identical with protoplasm. He called it _sarcode_. Hugo von\nMohl (1846) first applied the name protoplasm to the peculiar serus and\nmobile substance in the interior of vegetable cells; and he perceived\nits high importance, but was very far from understanding its\nsignificance in relation to all organisms. Not, however, until Ferdinand\nCohn (1850) and more fully Franz Unger (1855) had established the\nidentity of the animate and contractile protoplasm in vegetable cells\nand the sarcode of the lower animals, could Max Shultz in 1856-61\nelaborate the protoplasm theory of the sarcode so as to proclaim\nprotoplasm to be the most essential and important constituent of all\norganic cells, and to show that the bag or husk of the cell, the\ncellular membrane and intercellular substance, are but secondary parts\nof the cell, and are frequently wanting. In a similar manner Lionel\nBeale (1862) gave to protoplasm, including the cellular germ, the name\nof \"germinal matter,\" and to all the other substance entering into the\ncomposition of tissue, being secondary, and produced the name of \"formed\nmatter.\"\n\n\"Wherever there is life there is protoplasm; wherever there is\nprotoplasm, there, too, is life.\" The physical consistence of protoplasm\nvaries with the amount of water with which it is combined, from the\nsolid form in which we find it in the dormant state to the thin watery\nstate in which it occurs in the leaves of valisneria.\n\nAs to its composition, chemistry can as yet give but scanty information;\nit can tell that it is composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,\nsulphur, and phosphorus, and it can also tell the percentage of each\nelement, but it cannot give more than a formula that will express it as\na whole, giving no information as to the nature of the numerous\nalbuminoid substances which compose it. Edward Cope, in his article on\nComparative Anatomy,[5] gives the formula for protoplasm (as a whole),\nC{24}H{17}N{3}O{8} + S and P, in small quantities under some circumstances.\nIt is therefore, he says, a nitryl of cellulose: C{24}H{20}O{2} + 3NH{3}.\nAccording to Mulder the composition of albumen, one of the class of\nprotein substances to which protoplasm belongs, is 10(C{40}H{31}N{5}O{12})\n+ S{2}P. Protoplasm is identical in both the animal and vegetable kingdom;\nit behaves the same from whatever source it may be derived towards\nseveral re-agents, as also electricity. Is it possible, then, that the\nprotoplasm which produces the mould is exactly the same composition as\nthat which produces the human child? The answer is YES, so far as the\nelements are concerned, but the proportions of carbon, hydrogen, etc.,\nmust enter into an infinite number of diverse stratifications and\ncombination in the production of the various forms of life. Professor\nFrankland, speaking of protein, for instance, says it is capable of\nexisting under probably at least a thousand isomeric forms. Protoplasm\nmay be distinguished under the microscope from other members of the\nclass to which it belongs, on account of the faculty it possesses of\ncombining with certain coloring matters, as carmine and aniline; it is\ncolored dark-red or yellowish-brown by iodine and nitric acid, and it is\ncoagulated by alcohol and mineral acids as well as by heat. It possesses\nthe quality of absorbing water in various quantities, which renders it\nsometimes extremely soft and nearly liquid, and sometimes hard and firm\nlike leather. Its prominent physical properties are excitability and\ncontractility, which K\u00fchne and others have especially investigated. The\nmotion of protoplasm in plants was first made known by Bonaventure Corti\na century ago in the Charoe plants; but this important fact was\nforgotten, and it had to be discovered by Treviranus in 1807. The\nregular motion of the protoplasm, forming a perfect current, may be seen\nin the hairs of the nettle, and weighty evidence exists that similar\ncurrents occur in all young vegetable cells. \"If such be the case,\" says\nHuxley, \"the wonderful noonday silence of a tropical forest is, after\nall, due only to the dullness of our hearing, and could our ears catch\nthe murmur of these tiny maelstroms, as they whirl in innumerable\nmyriads of living cells, which constitute each tree, we should be\nstunned as with a roar of a great city.\"\n\nOne step higher in the scale of life than the monera is the vegetable or\nanimal cell, which arose out of the monera by the important process of\nsegregation in their homogeneous viscid bodies, the differentiation of\nan inner kernel from the surrounding plasma. By this means the great\nprogress from a simple cytod (without kernel) into a real cell (with\nkernel) was accomplished. Some of these cells at an early stage encased\nthemselves by secreting a hardened membrane; they formed the first\nvegetable cells, while others remaining naked developed into the first\naggregate of animal cells. The vegetable cell has usually two concentric\ncoverings--cell-wall and primordial utricle. In animal cells the former\nis wanting, the membrane representing the utricle. As a general fact,\nalso, animal cells are smaller than vegetable cells. Their size[6]\nvaries greatly, but are generally invisible to the naked eye, ranging\nfrom 1/500 to 1/10000 of an inch in diameter. About four thousand of the\nsmallest would be required to cover the dot put over the letter i in\nwriting. The shape of cells varies greatly; the normal form, though, is\nspheroidal as in the cells of fat, but they often become[7]\nmany-sided--sometimes flattened as in the cuticle, and sometimes\nelongated into a simple filament as in fibrous tissue or muscular fibre.\n\nThe cell, therefore, is extremely interesting, since all animal and\nvegetable structure is but the multiplication of the cell as a unit, and\nthe whole life of the plant or animal is that of the cells which compose\nthem, and in them or by them all its vital processes are carried on. It\nmay sound paradoxical to speak of an animal or plant being composed of\nmillions of cells; but beyond the momentary shock of the paradox no harm\nis done.\n\nThe cell, then, can be regarded as the basis of our physiological idea\nof the elementary organism; but in the animal as well as in the plant,\nneither cell-wall nor nucleus is an essential constituent of the cell,\ninasmuch as bodies which are unquestionably the equivalents of\ncells--true morphological units--may be mere masses of protoplasm,\ndevoid alike of cell-wall or nucleus. For the whole living world, then,\nthe primary and a mental form of life is merely an individual mass of\nprotoplasm in which no further structure is discernible. Well, then, has\nprotoplasm been called the \"universal concomitant of every phenomena of\nlife.\" Life is inseparable from this substance, but is dormant unless\nexcited by some external stimulant, such as heat, light, electricity,\nfood, water, and oxygen.\n\nAlthough we have seen that the life of the plant as well as of the\nanimal is protoplasm, and that the protoplasm of the plant and that of\nthe animal bear the closest resemblance, yet plants can manufacture\nprotoplasm out of mineral compounds, whereas animals are obliged to\nprocure it ready made, and hence in the end depend on plants. \"Without\nplants,\" says Professor Orton, \"animals would perish; without animals,\nplants had no need to be.\" The food of a plant is a matter whose energy\nis all expended--is a fallen weight. But the plant organism receives it,\nexposes it to the sun's rays, and in a way mysterious to us converts the\nactual energy of the sunlight into potential energy within it. It is for\nthis reason that life has been termed \"bottled-sunshine.\"\n\nThe principal food of the plant consists of carbon united with oxygen to\nform carbonic acid, hydrogen united with oxygen to form water, and\nnitrogen united with hydrogen to form ammonia. These elements thus\nunited, which in themselves are perfectly lifeless, the plant is able to\nconvert into living protoplasm. \"Plants are,\" says Huxley, \"the\naccumulators of the power which animals distribute and disperse.\"\nBoussengault found long since that peas sown in pure sand, moistened\nwith distilled water and fed by the air, obtained all the carbon\nnecessary for their development, flowering, and fructification. Here we\nsee a plant which not only maintains its vigor on these few substances,\nbut grows until it has increased a millionfold or a million-millionfold\nthe quantity of protoplasm it originally possessed, and this protoplasm\nexhibits the phenomena of life. This and other proof led M. Dumas to\nsay: \"From the loftiest point of view, and in connection with the\nphysics of the globe, it would be imperative on us to say that in so far\nas their truly organic elements are concerned, plants and animals are\nthe offspring of the air.\"\n\nSchleiden,[8] speaking of the haymakers of Switzerland and the Tyrol,\nsays: \"He mows his definite amount of grass every year on the Alps,\ninaccessible to cattle, and gives not back the smallest quantity of\norganic substance to the soil. Whence comes the hay, if not from the\natmosphere.\"\n\nIt has been seen, then, that plants can manufacture protoplasm, a\nfaculty which animals are not possessed of; they at best can only\nconvert dead protoplasm into living protoplasm. Thus when vegetable or\nmeat is cooked their protoplasm dies, but is not rendered incompetent of\nresuming its old functions as a matter of life. \"If I,\" says Huxley,\n\"should eat a piece of cooked mutton, which was once the living\nprotoplasm of a sheep, the protoplasm, rendered dead by cooking, will be\nchanged into living protoplasm, and thus I would transubstantiate sheep\ninto man; and were I to return to my own place by sea and undergo\nshipwreck, the crustacean might and probably would return the\ncompliment, and demonstrate our common nature by turning my protoplasm\ninto living lobster.\" As has been said before, where there are life\nmanifestations there is protoplasm. Life is regarded by one class of\nthinkers as the principle or cause of organization; and according to the\nother, life is the product or effect of organization. We must, however,\nagree with Professor Orton, who says: \"Life is the effect of\norganization, not the result of it. Animals do not live because they are\norganized, but are organized because they are alive.\" In whatever way it\nis looked at, life is but a forced condition. \"The more advanced\nthinkers, then, in science to-day,\" says Barker, \"therefore look upon\nthe life of the living form as inseparable from its substance, and\nbelieve that the former is purely phenomenal and only a manifestation of\nthe latter. During the existence of a special force as such, they retain\nthe term only to express the sum of the phenomena of living beings. The\nword life must be regarded, then, as only a generalized expression\nsignifying the sum-total of the properties of matter possessing such\norganization.\"\n\nIn what manner, then, does this matter, possessing the phenomena of\nlife, differ from inorganic matter, or in what manner does living matter\ndiffer from matter not living? The forces which are at work on the one\nside are at work on the other. The phenomena of life are all dependent\nupon the working of the same physical and chemical forces as those\nwhich are active in the rest of the world. It may be convenient to use\nthe terms \"vitality\" and \"vital force\" to denote the cause of certain\ngroups of natural operations, as we employ the names of \"electricity\"\nand \"electrical force\" to denote others; but it ceases to do so, if such\na name implies the absurd assumption that either \"electricity\" or\n\"vitality\" is an entity, playing the part of a sufficient cause of\nelectrical or vital phenomena. A mass of living protoplasm is simply a\nmachine of great complexity, the total result of the work of which, or\nits vital phenomena, depend on the one hand upon its construction, and\non the other upon the energy supplied to it; and to speak of \"vitality\"\nas anything but the names of a series of operations is as if one should\ntalk of the \"horologity\" of a clock.[9]\n\nWhen hydrogen and oxygen are united by an electrical spark water is\nproduced; certainly there is no parity between the liquid produced and\nthe two gases. At 32\u00b0 F., oxygen and hydrogen are elastic gaseous\nbodies, whose particles tend to fly away from one another; water at the\nsame temperature is a strong though brittle solid. Such changes are\ncalled the properties of water. It is not assumed that a certain\nsomething called \"acquosity\" has entered into and taken possession of\nthe oxide of hydrogen as soon as formed, and then guarded the particles\nin the facets of the crystal or amongst the leaflets of the hoar-frost.\nOn the contrary, it is hoped molecular physics will in time explain the\nphenomena. \"What better philosophical status,\" says Huxley,[10] \"has\nvitality than acquosity. If the properties of water may be properly said\nto result from the nature and disposition of its molecules, I can find\nno intelligible ground for refusing to say that the properties of\nprotoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its molecules.\"\n\n\"To distinguish the living from the dead body,\" Herbert Spencer says,\n\"the tree that puts out leaves when the spring brings change of\ntemperature, the flower which opens and closes with the rising and\nsetting of the sun, the plant that droops when the soil is dry and\nre-erects itself when watered, are considered alive because of these\nproduced changes; in common with the zoophyte, which contracts on the\npassing of a cloud over the sun, the worm that comes to the ground when\ncontinually shaken, and the hedgehog which rolls itself up when\nattacked.\"\n\n\"Seeds of wheat produced antecedent to the Pharaohs,\" says Bastain,[11]\n\"remaining in Egyptian catacombs through century after century display\nof course no vital manifestations, but nevertheless retain the\npotentiality of growing into perfect plants whenever they may be brought\ninto contact with suitable external conditions. We must presume that\neither (1) during this long lapse of centuries the 'vital principle' of\nthe plant has been imprisoned in the most dreary and impenetrable of\ndungeons, whither no sister effluence from the general 'soul of nature'\ncould affect it; or else (2) that the germ of the future living plant is\nthere only in the form of an inherited structure, whose molecular\ncomplexities are of such a kind that, after moisture has restored\nmobility to its atoms, its potential life may pass into actual life.\nSome of the lowest forms of animals and plants have such a tenacity to\nlife that their vital manifestation may be kept in abeyance for five,\nten, fifteen, or even twenty years. Though not living any more than the\nwheat, they also retain the potentiality of manifestation of life; and\nfor each alike, in order that this potentiality may pass into actuality,\nthe first requisition is water with which to restore them to that\npossibility of molecular rearrangement under the influence of incident\nforces, of which the absence of water had deprived them, and without\nwhich, life in any real sense is impossible.\"\n\n\n  ANALYSIS OF A MAN.\n\n  (BY PROF. MILLER.)\n\n  A man 5 feet 8 inches high, weighing 154 pounds.\n\n                     lbs.         oz.          grs.\n  Oxygen             111           0            0\n  Hydrogen            14           0            0\n  Carbon              21           0            0\n  Nitrogen             3          10            0\n\n  Inorganic elements in the ash:\n\n  Phosphorus           1           2           88\n  Calcium              2           0            0\n  Sulphur              0           0          219\n  Chlorine             0           2           47\n\n  1 ounce = 437 grains.\n\n  Sodium               0           2          116\n  Iron                 0           0          100\n  Potassium            0           0          290\n  Magnesium            0           0           12\n  Silica               0           0            2\n\n  Total              154           0            0\n\n\n  The quantity of the substances found in a human body\n  weighing 154 pounds:\n\n                     lbs.         oz.        grs.\n  Water              111           0            0\n  Gelatin             15           0            0\n  Albumen              4           3            0\n  Fibrine              4           4            0\n  Fat                 12           0            0\n  Ashes                7           9            0\n\n  Total              154           0            0\n\n  (From the \"CHEMISTS' MANUAL.\")\n\n\nProfessor Owen[12] says: \"There are organisms (vibrieo, rotifer,\nmacrobiotus, etc.) which we can devitalize and revitalize--devive and\nrevive--many times. As the dried animalcule manifest no phenomena\nsuggesting any idea contributing to form the complex one of 'life' in my\nmind, I regard it to be as completely lifeless as is the drowned man,\nwhose breath and heat have gone, and whose blood has ceased to\ncirculate. * * * The change of work consequent on drying or drowning\nforthwith begins to alter relations or compositions, and in time to a\ndegree adverse to resumption of the vital form of force, a longer period\nbeing needed for this effect in the rotifer, a shorter one in the man,\nstill shorter it may be in the amoeba.\"\n\n\"There is,\" says Dumas,[13] \"an eternal round in which death is\nquickened and life appears, but in which matter merely changes its place\nand form.\"\n\nLet us now compare the inorganic world with the organic--the inanimate\nwith the animate--and see if there does exist an inseparable boundary\nbetween them. The fundamental properties of every natural body are\nmatter, form, and force. One important point to be noticed is, that the\nelements which compose all animate bodies are the very elements that\nhelp to build up the inanimate bodies. No new elements appear in the\nvegetable or animal world which are not to be found in the inorganic\nworld. The difference between animate and inanimate bodies, therefore,\nis certainly not in the elements which form them, but in the molecular\ncombination of them; and it is to be hoped that molecular physics will,\nat some not far distant time, enlighten us as to the peculiar state of\naggregation in which the molecules exist in living matter. As to the\nform, it is impossible to find any essential difference in the external\nform and inner structure between inorganic and organic bodies--for the\nsimple monad, which is as much a living organism as the most complex\nbeing, is nothing but a homogeneous, structureless mass of protoplasm.\nBut just as the inorganic substance, according to well-defined laws,\nelaborates its structure into a crystal of great beauty, so does the\nprotoplasm elaborate itself into the most beautiful of all\nstructures--the cell unit. Just as gold and copper crystallizes in a\ngeometrical form, a cube--bismuth and antimony in a hexagonal, iodine\nand sulphur in a rhombic form--so we find among radiolaria, and among\nother protista and lower forms, that they \"may be traced to a\nmathematical, fundamental form, and whose form in its whole, as well as\nin its parts, is bounded by definite geometrically determinable planes\nand angles.\" Now, as to the forces of the two different groups of\nbodies. Surely the constructive force of a crystal is due to the\nchemical composition, and to its material constitution. As the shape of\nthe crystal and its size are influenced by surrounding circumstances,\nthere is, therefore, an external constructive force at work. The only\ndifference between the growth of an organism and that of a crystal is,\nthat in the former case, in consequence of its semi-fluid state of\naggregation, the newly added particles penetrate into the interior of\nthe organism (inter-susception), whereas inorganic substances receive\nhomogeneous matter from without, only by opposition or an addition of\nnew particles to the surface. \"If we, then, designate the growth and the\nformation of organisms as a process of life, we may with equal reason\napply the same term with the developing crystal.\" It is for these and\nother reasons, demonstrating as they do the \"unity of organic and\ninorganic nature,\" the essential agreement of inorganic and organic\nbodies in matter, form, and force, which led Tyndall[14] to say:\n\"Abandoning all disguise, the confession that I feel bound to make\nbefore you is, that I prolong the vision backward across the boundary of\nexperimental evidence, and discern in that matter which we in our\nignorance, and notwithstanding our professed reverence for its Creator,\nhave hitherto covered with opprobrium, the promise and potency of every\nform and quality of life.\"\n\nReturning now to our protoplasm, let us ask the question: Where did it\ncome from? or, How did it come into existence? Though chemical synthesis\nhas built up a number of organic substances which have been deemed the\nproduct of vitality, yet, up to the present day, the fact stands out\nbefore us that no one has ever built up one particle of living matter,\nhowever minute, from lifeless elements.\n\nThe protoplasm of to-day is simply a continuation of the protoplasm of\nother ages, handed down to us through periods of undefinable and\nindeterminable time.\n\nThe question of where protoplasm came from--how it arose--chemistry is\nunable to answer; but the question is answered, probably, by spontaneous\ngeneration. Only the merest particle of living protoplasm was necessary\nto be formed from lifeless matter in the beginning; for, in the eyes of\nany consistent evolutionist, any further independent formation would be\nsheer waste, as the hypothesis of evolution postulates the unlimited,\nthough perhaps not, indefinite modifiability of such matter. As we have\nseen that there exists no absolute barrier between organic and inorganic\nbodies, it is not so difficult to conceive that the first particle of\nprotoplasm may have originated, under suitable conditions, out of\ninorganic or lifeless matter. But the causes which have led to the\norigination of this particle, it may be said, we know absolutely\nnothing--as in the formation of the crystal and the cell--the ultimate\ncauses remain in both cases concealed from us.\n\nAt the time in the earth's history when water, in a liquid state, made\nits appearance on the cooled crust of the earth, the carbon probably\nexisted as carbonic acid dispersed in the atmosphere; and from the very\nbest of grounds, it is reasonable to assume that the density and\nelectric condition of the atmosphere were quite different, as also the\nchemical and physical nature of the primeval ocean was quite different.\nIn any case, therefore, even[15] if we do not know anything more about\nit, there remains the supposition, which can at least not be disputed,\nthat at that time, under conditions quite different from those of\nto-day, a spontaneous generation, which is now perhaps no longer\npossible, may have taken place. This point is now conceded by most all\nof the advanced scientists of the day, and is absolutely necessary for\nthe completion of the hypothesis of evolution.\n\nThe answer may come to this--Well, suppose the first protoplasm did\noriginate by spontaneous generation, where did the elements or force\ncome from which compose it?\n\nScience has nothing to do with the coming into existence of matter or\nforce, for she proves both to be indestructible; when they disappear,\nthey do so only to reappear in some other form. The coming into\nexistence of matter and force, as also the ultimate cause of all\nphenomena, is beyond the domain of scientific inquiry. Science has only\nto do with the coming in of the form of matter, not the coming in of its\nexistence.\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--A Moneron (Protamoeba) in act of reproduction;\n_A_, the whole Moneron, which moves like ordinary Amoeba, by means of\nvariable processes: _B_, a contraction around its circumference parts it\ninto two halves; _C_, the two halves separate, and each now forms\nindependent individuals. (Much enlarged.)--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. II.--_A_, is a crawling Amoeba (much\nenlarged).--_Haeckel._ The whole organism has the form-value of a naked\ncell and moves about by means of changeable processes, which are\nextended from the protoplasmic body and again drawn in. In the inside is\nthe bright-colored, roundish cell-kernel or nucleus. _B_, Egg-cell of a\nChalk Sponge (Olynthus).--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents the next higher stage,\nMulberry-germ or Morula (Synamoeba).--_Haeckel._]\n\n\n\n\nTHE COMING INTO EXISTENCE OF MAN,\n\nBY THE SLOW PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT.\n\n\nIt is necessary now to take up the little mass of living matter,\nadmitting its coming into existence by spontaneous generation as\nprobable, and so probable that it almost amounts to a certainty, and\nfollow it through the many changes it is about to make under the\ninfluence of the laws which govern evolution until it has culminated in\nman, and these laws still acting on the brain of man, perfecting it, and\nleading him on to the comprehension of a grander and nobler conception\nof the Almighty and of his works.\n\nThe start, then, must be made with a homogeneous mass of protoplasm,\nsuch as the existing _Protamoeba primitiva_ of the present day, which\nis a structureless organism without organs, and which came into\nexistence during the Laurentian period. It is to this simplified\ncondition, as I have previously stated, all fertilized eggs return\nbefore they commence to develop.\n\nThe first process of adaptation effected by the monera must have been\nthe condensation of an external crust, which, as a protecting covering,\nshut in the softer interior from the hostile influences of the outer\nworld. As soon as, by condensation of the homogeneous moneron, a\ncell-kernel arose in the interior, and a membrane arose on the surface,\nall the fundamental parts of the unit were then furnished. Such a unit\nwas an organism, similar to the white corpuscle of the blood, and\ncalled _amoeb\u00e6_. Here we have two different stages of evolution; the\nprotoplasma (better plasson) of the cytod undergoes differentiation, and\nis split up into two kinds of albuminous substances--the inner\ncell-kernel (nucleus) and the outer cell-substance (protoplasma). Edward\nvon Benden, in his work upon _Gregarin\u00e6_, first clearly pointed out this\nfact, that we must distinguish thoroughly between the plasson of cytods\nand the protoplasm of cells.\n\nAn irrefutable proof that such single-celled prim\u00e6val animals like the\namoeba really existed as the direct ancestors of man, is furnished,\naccording to the fundamental law of biogeny, by the fact that the human\negg is nothing more than a simple cell.\n\nThe next step taken in advance is the division of the cell in\ntwo;--there arise from the single germinal spot two new kernel specks,\nand then, in like manner, out of the germinal vesicle two new\ncell-kernels. The same process of cell-division now repeats itself\nseveral times in succession, and the products of the division form a\nperfect union. This organism may be called a community of _amoeb\u00e6_\n(synamoeb\u00e6).\n\nFrom the community of amoeba morula, now arose ciliated larv\u00e6. The\ncells lying on the surface extended hair-like processes or fringes of\nhair, which, by striking against the water, kept the whole body\nrotating--the lanceolate animals or amphioxus were thus first produced.\nHere we find from the synamoeb\u00e6 which crept about slowly at the bottom\nof the Laurentian primeval ocean by means of movements like those of an\namoeba, that the newly-formed plan\u00e6a by the vibrating movements of the\ncilia, the entire multicellular body acquired a more rapid and stronger\nmotion, and passed over from the creeping to the swimming mode of\nlocomotion. The plan\u00e6a consisted, then, of two kinds of cells--inner\nones like the amoeb\u00e6, and external \"ciliated cells.\" The ancestors of\nman, which possessed the form value of the ciliated larva, is, of\ncourse, extinct at the present day.\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--The Norwegian Flimmer-ball (Magosphoera\nPlanula), swimming by means of its vibratile fringes; seen from the\nsurface.--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. II.--The same in section. The pear-shaped cells are\nseen bound together in the centre of the gelatinous sphere by a\nthread-like process. Each cell contains both a kernel and a contractile\nvesicle. (PLAN\u00c6A SERIES.)--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIGS. III AND IV.--Represents GASTR\u00c6A SERIES. The body\nconsists merely of a simple primitive intestine, the wall of which is\nformed of two primary germ-layers.--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIGS. I and II.--Represents the next higher stage\n(Tubularia). Fig. I, a simple Gliding Worm (Rhabdocoelum); _m_, mouth;\n_sd_, throat-epithelium; _sm_, throat-muscles; _d_, stomach-intestine;\n_nc_, kidney-ducts; _nm_, opening of the kidneys; _au_, eye; _na_,\nnose-pit. Fig. II, the same Gliding Worm, showing the remaining organs;\n_g_, brain; _au_, eye; _na_, nose-pit; _n_, nerves; _h_, testes;\n[male symbol], male opening; [female symbol], female opening; _e_,\novary; _f_, ciliated outer-skin.--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents Soft Worms (Scolecida) and is a\nyoung Acorn Worm (Balanoglossus), after _Agassiz_. _r_, acorn-like\nproboscis; _h_, collar; _k_, gill-openings and gill-arches of the\nanterior intestine, in a long row, one behind the other, on each side;\n_d_, digestive posterior intestine, filling the greater part of the body\ncavity; _v_, intestinal vessel, lying between two parallel folds of the\nskin; _a_, anus.]\n\n\nOut of the planula, then, develops an exceedingly important animal\nform--the gastrula (that is, larva with a stomach or intestine), which\nresembles the planula, but differs essentially in the fact that it\nencloses a cavity which opens to the outside by a mouth. The wall of the\nprogaster (primary stomach) consists of two layers of cells: an outer\nlayer of smaller ciliated cells (outer skin or ectoderm), and of an\ninner layer of large non-ciliated cells (inner skin or entoderm). This\nexceedingly important larval form, the \"gastrula,\" makes its appearance\nin the ontogenesis of all tribes of animals. These gastr\u00e6ada must have\nexisted during the older primordial period, and they must have also\nincluded the ancestors of man. A certain proof of this is furnished by\nthe amphioxus, which, in spite of its blood relationship to man, still\npasses through the stage of the gastrula with a simple intestine and a\ndouble intestinal wall.[16] By motion of the cilia or fringes of the\nskin-layer, the gastr\u00e6a swam freely about in the Laurentian ocean.\n\nThe development of the gastr\u00e6a now deviated in two directions--one\nbranch of gastr\u00e6ads gave up free locomotion, adhered to the bottom of\nthe sea, and thus, by adopting an adhesive mode of life, gave rise to\nthe proascus, the common primary form of the animal plants (zoophyta).\nThe other branch was originated by the formation of a middle germ-layer\nor muscular layer, and also by the further differentiation of the\ninternal parts into various organs; more especially, the first formation\nof a nervous system, the simplest organs of sense, the simplest organs\nfor secretion (kidneys), and generation (sexual organs)--this branch is\nthe prothelmis, the common primary worms (vermes). Like the turbellaria\nof the present day, the whole surface of their body was covered with\ncilia, and they possessed a simple body of an oval shape, entirely\nwithout appendages. These acoelomatous worms did not as yet possess a\ntrue body cavity (coelom) nor blood. No member of the next higher\nanimals are in existence, neither are there any fossil remains, owing to\nthe soft nature of their body. They are therefore called soft worms, or\nscoleceda. They developed out of the turbellaria of the sixth stage by\nforming a true body cavity (a coelom) and blood in their interior. The\nnearest still living coelomati is probably the acorn worms\n(balanoglossus). The form value of this stage must, moreover, have been\nrepresented by several different intermediate stages.\n\nOut of the four different groups of the worm tribe, the four higher\ntribes of the animal kingdom were developed--the star-fishes\n(echinoderma) and insects (arthropoda) on the one hand, and the molluscs\n(mollusca) and vertebrated animals (vertebrata) on the other. Out of\ncertain coelomati, the most ancient skull-less vertebrata were\ndirectly developed. Among the coelomati of the present day, the\nascidians are the nearest relatives of this exceedingly remarkable worm,\nwhich connect the widely differing classes of invertebrate and\nvertebrate animals. To these animals have been given the name of\nsack-worms (himatega). They originated out of the worms of the seventh\nstage by the formation of a dorsal nerve marrow (medulla tube), and by\nthe formation of the spinal rod (chorda dorsalis) which lies below it.\nIt is just the position of this central spinal rod or axial skeleton,\nbetween the dorsal marrow on the dorsal side and the intestinal canal on\nthe ventral side, which is most characteristic of all vertebrate\nanimals, including man, but also of the larv\u00e6 of the ascidia.\n\nWe now come to the second half of the series of human ancestors. The\nskull-less animal lancelet, which is still living, affords a faint idea\nof the members of this group (acrania). Since this little animal, in its\nearliest embryonic state, entirely agrees with the ascidia, and in its\nfurther development shows itself to be a true vertebrate animal, it forms\na direct transition from the vertebrata to the invertebrata.\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Appendicularia, seen from the left side, _m_,\nmouth; _k_, gill intestine; _o_, oesophagus; _v_, stomach; _a_, anus;\n_n_, nerve ganglia (upper throat-knots); _g_, ear vesicle; _f_, ciliated\ngroove under the gill; _h_, heart; _e_, ovary; _c_, notochord; _s_,\ntail.--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. II.--Represents Sack Worms (Himatega), and is the\nstructure of an Ascidian, seen from the left. _sb_, gill-sac; _v_,\nstomach; _i_, large intestine; _c_, heart; _t_, testes; _vd_, seed duct;\n_o_, ovary; _o'_, matured eggs in the body cavity. After\n_Milne-Edwards_.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents the ACRANIA SERIES. Lancelet\n(Amhioxus Lanceolatus), twice the actual size, seen from the left. _a_,\nmouth-opening, surrounded by cilia; _b_, anal-opening; _c_,\nventral-opening (Porus abdominalis); _d_, gill-body; _e_, stomach; _f_,\nliver-coecum; _g_, large intestine; _h_, coelum; _i_, notochord\n(under it the aorta); _k_, arches of the aorta; _l_, main gill-artery;\n_m_, swellings on its branches; _n_, hollow vein; _o_, intestinal\nvein.--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents the MONORHINA SERIES. Lamprey\n(Petromyzon Americanus) from the Atlantic--_Orton._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. II.--Represents the Selachii. Shark (Carcharias\nvulgaris) from the Atlantic--_Orton._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents the Mud-fish (Dipneusta).\nLepidosiren annecteus, one-fourth natural size; African\nrivers.--_Orton._ Form a link between typical fishes and the\nAmphibians.]\n\n\nAt this stage, most probably, the separation of the two sexes began. The\nsimpler and most ancient form of sexual propagation is through\ndouble-sexed individuals (hermaphroditismus). It occurs in the great\nmajority of plants, but only in a minority of animals; for example, in\nthe garden-snails, leeches, earth-worms and many other worms. Every\nsingle individual among hermaphrodites produces within itself materials\nof both sexes--egg and sperm. In most of the higher plants every blossom\ncontains both the male organs (stamen and anther) and the female organs\n(style and germ). Every garden-snail produces in one part of its sexual\ngland eggs, and in another sperm. Many hermaphrodites can fructify\nthemselves; in others, however, copulation and reciprocal fructification\nof both hermaphrodites are necessary for causing the development of the\neggs. This latter case is evidently a transition to sexual separation\n(gonoehorismus).\n\nOut of the members of the last group arose animals with skulls or\ncraniata, having round mouths, and which are divided into hags and\nlampreys. The hags (myxinoides) have long cylindrical worm-like bodies.\nThe lampreys (petromyxontes) includes those well known \"nine eyes\"\ncommon at the seaside.\n\nThese single-nostril animals (monorrhina) arose during the primordial\nperiod out of the skull-less animals by the anterior end of the dorsal\nmarrow developing into the brain, and the anterior end of the dorsal\nskull into the skull. By the division of the single nostril of the\nmembers of the last group into two lateral halves, by the formation of a\nsympathetic nervous system, a jaw skeleton, a swimming bladder and two\npairs of legs (breast fins or fore-legs, and ventral fins or\nhind-legs), arose the prim\u00e6val fish (selachii), which is best\nrepresented by the still-living shark (squalacei).\n\nOut of the prim\u00e6val fish arose the mud-fish (dipneusta), which is very\nimperfectly represented by the still-living salamander fish; the\nprim\u00e6val fish adapting itself to land, and by the transforming of the\nswimming bladder into an air-breathing lung, and of the nasal cavity\n(which was now open into the mouth cavity) into air-passages. Their\norganization _might_, in some respect, be like the ceratodus and\nproloptems; but this is not certain.\n\nThe dipneusta is an intermediate stage between the selachii and\namphibia. Out of the dipneusta arose the class of amphibia, having five\ntoes (the pentadactyla). The gill amphibians are man's most ancient\nancestors of the class amphibia. Besides possessing lungs as well as the\nmud-fish, they retain throughout life regular gills like the\nstill-living proteus and axolotl. Most gilled batrachia live in North\nAmerica. The paddle-fins of the dipneusta changed into five-toed legs,\nwhich were afterwards transmitted to the higher vertebrata up to man.\n\nThe gilled amphibia (sozobrachia) of the last group finally lost their\ngills but retained their tail, and tailed amphibians (sozura) were\nproduced, such as the salamander and newt of the present day. Out of the\nsozura originated the prim\u00e6val amniota (protamnia) by the complete loss\nof the gills by the formation of the amnion of the cochlea, and of the\nround window in the auditory organ, and of the organ of tears. Out of\nthe protamnia originated the primary mammals (promammalia). The most\nclosely related were the ornithostoma; they differed through having\nteeth in their jaws.\n\nNo fossil remains of the primary mammals have as yet been found,\nalthough they lived during the trias period--they possessed a very\nhighly developed jaw. From the primary mammal arose the pouched animals\n(marsupialia). Numerous representatives of this group still exist:\nkangaroos, pouched rats and pouched dogs. The marsupial animals\ndeveloped, very probably, in the mesolithic epoch (during the Jura) out\nof the cloacal animals; by the division of the cloaca into the rectum\nand the urogenital sinus, by the formation of a nipple on the mammary\ngland, and the partial suppression of the clavicles.\n\n\n[Illustration: FIGS. I and II.--The Ceratodus Forsteri occur in the\nswamps of Southern Australia. Form transition between fishes and\nAmphibia.--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents the Gilled Amphibians (Soyobranchia).\nThe Axolotl (Siredon pisciforme), after Tegetmeier. The ordinary form\nwith persistent branchi\u00e6.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. II.--Proteus Anguinus. Europe.--_Orton._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. III.--Represents the Tailed Amphibians (Soyura).\nGreat Water-Newt (Triton cristatus), after _Bell._]\n\n\nFrom the marsupialia originated a most interesting small group of\nsemi-apes (prosimi\u00e6), for they are the primary forms of genuine apes and\nconsequently of man. They developed out of handed or ape-footed\nmarsupials (pedumana), of rat-like appearance, by the formation of a\nplacenta, the loss of the marsupium and the marsupial bones, and by the\nhigher development of the commissures of the brain. The still-living\nshort-footed semi-ape (brachytarsi), especially the muki, indie and\nlori, possess possibly a faint resemblance.\n\nOut of the semi-apes developed two classes of genuine apes; but as the\nnarrow-nosed or catarrhini class are the only ones related to man, the\nothers will not be considered. These narrow-nosed apes originated by the\ntransformation of the jaw, and by the claws on the toes changing into\nnails. The still-living long-tail nose-apes and holy apes\n(semnopithecus) probably resembled the oldest ancestors of this group.\n\nThe tailed apes by the loss of their tail and some of their hair\ncovering, and by the excessive development of that portion of their\nbrain above the facial portion of the skull, developed into the man-like\napes (anthropoides)--such as the gorilla and chimpanzee of Africa, and\nthe orang and gibbon of Asia. The human ancestors of this group existed\nduring the miocene period. From the anthropoides developed the ape-like\nmen (pithecanthropi) during the tertiary period. The speechless\nprim\u00e6val men (alali), then, is the connecting link between the man-like\napes and man. The fore-hand of the anthropoides became the human hand,\ntheir hinder-hand a foot for walking. They did not possess the\narticulate human language of words and the higher developments, as\nconsciousness and the formation of ideas must have been very imperfect.\n\nOut of the pithecanthropi men developed genuine man, by the development\nof the animal language of sounds into a connected or articulate language\nof words--the brain also developed higher and higher. This transition\ntook place, probably, at the beginning of the quaternary period, or\npossibly in the tertiary.\n\nWe have now very briefly reviewed the principal outlines of the\nancestors of man, showing that man has developed from the little mass of\nprotoplasm, as have all animals and plants. He therefore was not\n_spontaneously_ created, but was developed. The question is often asked\nby simple-minded people, with much delight, Why do we not behold the\ninteresting spectacle of the transformation of a chimpanzee into a man,\nor conversely of a man by retrogression into an orang?--it only shows\nthat they are not acquainted with the first principles of the Doctrine\nof Descent. \"Not one of the apes,\" says Schmidt, \"can revert to the\nstate of his primordial ancestors, except by retrogression--by which a\nprimordial condition is by no means attained--he cannot divest himself\nof his acquired characters fixed by heredity, nor can he exceed himself\nand become man; for man does not stand in the direct line of development\nfrom the ape. The development of the anthropoid apes has taken a lateral\ncourse from the nearest human progenitors, and man can as little be\ntransformed into a gorilla as a squirrel can be changed into a rat.\"\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Salamandra Maculata.--_Haeckel_. The Water Newts\nand Salamanders were the next higher stage after the Proteus and the\nAxolotl.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Prim\u00e6val Amniota (Protamnia). Lizard\n(Lacerta), after _Orton_.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. II.--Represents Primary Mammals (Promammalia).\nAMNIOTA SERIES. Duck-billed Platypus (Ornithorhynchus\nparadoxus).--_Haeckel_.]\n\n\n\"Feeling evidently,\"[17] says Haeckel, \"rather than understanding,\ninduces most people to combat the theory of their 'descent from apes.'\nIt is simply because the organism of the ape appears a caricature of\nman, a distorted likeness of ourselves in a not very attractive form;\nbecause the customary \u00e6sthetic ideas and self-glorification of man are\ntouched by this in so sensitive a point, that most men shrink from\nrecognizing their descent from apes. It seems much pleasanter to be\ndescended from a more highly developed divine being, and hence, as is\nwell known, human vanity has from the earliest times flattered itself by\nassuming the original descent of the race from gods or demi-gods.\"\n\n\n\n\nEVOLUTION.\n\n\nIn the last chapter a description was given of the various stages in\nman's development, from the microscopic monad up. It will be necessary\nnow to describe briefly the various laws which have governed this\nevolutionary chain from the monad to man. But before proceeding directly\nto the subject, let us look at the doctrine of evolution as a whole, and\ntrace it first in the formation of the world.\n\nThe doctrine of evolution is also called the theory of development--it\nmust not, however, be confused with Darwinism--for they are not exactly\nsynonymous. Darwinism is an attempt to explain the laws or manner of\nevolution. Strictly speaking, only the theory of selection should be\ncalled Darwinism, which was established in 1859. The theory of descent,\nor transmutation theory, or doctrine of filiation, should properly be\ncalled Lamarckism, who for the first time worked out the theory of\ndescent as an independent scientific theory of the first order, and as\nthe philosophical foundation of the whole science of biology.\n\n\"According to the theory of development (evolution) in its simplest\nform,\" says Henry Hartshorne,[18] \"the universe as it now exists is a\nresult of 'an immense series of changes,' related to and dependent upon\neach other as successive steps, or rather growths, constituting a\nprogress; analogous to the unfolding or evolving of the parts of a\ngrowing organism.\" Herbert Spencer defined evolution as consisting\nin a progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, from general to\nspecial, from the simple to the complex; and this process is considered\nto be traceable in the formation of worlds in space, in the\nmultiplication of the types and species of plants and animals on the\nglobe, in the origination and diversity of languages, literature, arts\nand sciences, and in all changes of human institutions and society.\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Skeleton of Platypus.--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Pouched Animals (Marsupialia).\nKangaroo. (Popular Science Monthly, Feb., 1876.)]\n\n\nLet us now apply this theory of evolution to the physical world. No\ndetermined opposition by the mass of people is likely to be manifested\nto the doctrine of evolution as applied to the physical world, or even\nto the vegetable or animal world up to man; but the minute man is\nincluded--then is a voice raised up against it, and it was for this\nreason that Darwin in his first work on the \"Theory of Descent\" did not\nmention man as being included in the evolutionary series. He knew too\nwell the foolish human weakness that existed.\n\nIn a recent work by Prof. Challes, he states that he regards the\nmaterial universe as \"a vast and wonderful mechanism of which the least\nwonderful thing is its being so constructed that we can understand it.\"\n\nThe following is a brief description of the various theories of the\nworld's formation:\n\n_First Theory._--By the first theory the world is supposed to have\nexisted from eternity under its actual form. Aristotle embraced this\ndoctrine, and conceived the universe to be the eternal effect of an\neternal cause; maintaining that not only the heavens and the earth, but\nall animate and inanimate beings, are without beginning. To use Huxley's\nillustration: If you can imagine a spectator on the earth, however far\nback in time, he would have seen a world \"essentially similar, though\nnot perhaps in all its details, to that which now exists. The animals\nwhich existed would be the ancestors of those which now exist, and like\nthem; the plants in like manner would be such as we have now, and like\nthem; and the supposition is that, at however distant a period of time\nyou place your observer, he would still find mountains, lands, and\nwaters, with animal and vegetable products flourishing upon them and\nsporting in them just as he finds now.\" This theory being perfectly\ninconsistent with facts, had to be abandoned.\n\n_Second Theory._--The second theory considers the universe eternal, but\nnot its form. This was the system of Epicurus and most of the ancient\nphilosophers and poets, who imagined the world either to be produced by\nfortuitous concourse of atoms existing from all eternity, or to have\nsprung out of the chaotic form which preceded its present state.\n\n_Third Theory._--By this theory the matter and form of the earth is\nascribed to the direct agency of a spiritual cause. It is needless to\nsay that this last theory has for its basis the popular account,\ngenerally credited to Moses in the first chapter of Genesis. I say\npopular, for it certainly is not a scientific account, nor was it the\nintention of the writer to make it so. The supposed object was to show\nthe relation between the Creator and his works. If it had been an\nultimate scientific account, the ablest minds of to-day would be unable\nto comprehend it, as science is progressive and constantly changing; in\nfifty thousand years to come, it would still appear utterly absurd. It\ncannot be said for this fact that the account is any the less true\nbecause it is not presented in scientific phraseology; for instance,\nwhen we remark in popular language \"the sun rises,\" who shall say that\nthough the expression is not astronomically true, we do not, for all\npractical purposes, utter as important a truth, as when we say, \"The\nearth by its revolution brings us to that point where the sun becomes\nvisible?\" The language, also, in which the writer wrote was very\nimperfect; it had no equivalent to our word \"air\" or \"atmosphere,\"\nproperly speaking, for they knew not the words. \"Their nearest\napproaches,\" according to J. Pye Smith, \"were with words that denoted\nwatery vapor condensed, and thus rendered visible, whether floating\naround them or seen in the breathing of animals; and words for smoke\nfrom substances burning; and for air in motion, wind, a zephyr whisper\nor a storm.\" It must also be remembered, \"that the Hebrews had no term\nfor the abstract ideas which we express by 'fluid' or 'matter.' If the\nwriter had designed to express the idea, 'In the beginning God created\n_matter_,' he could not have found words to serve his purpose\" (Phin).\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Skeleton of Kangaroo. (Popular Science\nMonthly.)]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Semi-Apes (Prosimi\u00e6). The Slow Loris,\nafter _Tickel_ and _Alp. Miln-Edwards_. (Natural History, by _Duncan_.)]\n\n\nIt is unnecessary to state how the Bible, which contains the so-called\nMosaic account, is regarded by the different church denominations, as\nundoubtedly that is familiar to every one. But with respect to the view\nentertained by the scientist and critical school of Biblical scholars,\nrepresented chiefly by modern Germans, I may state briefly: \"They regard\nthe Bible as the human record of a divine revelation; not absolutely\ninfallible, since there is no book written in any human language but\nmust partake in a measure of the imperfections of that language. Many of\nthis school, while admitting the Bible to contain the record of a true\nsupernatural revelation, do not consider it to be without positive error\nof historical fact, not without false coloring from popular legend and\ntradition, but nevertheless a record as good as human hands could make a\ntruly divine revelation.\"[19]\n\nThere is, though, a class of thinkers that altogether reject the Bible;\nthat is to say, refuse to believe it to be a divine revelation. Hume,\nwhom Huxley calls \"the most acute thinker of the eighteenth century,\"\nthus ends one of his essays: \"If we take in hand any volume of divinity\nor school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, _Does it contain any\nabstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?_ No. _Does it contain\nany experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?_ No.\nCommit it, then, to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry\nand illusion.\" To this Huxley says: \"Permit me to enforce this wise\nadvice, Why trouble ourselves about matters of which, however important\nthey may be, we do know nothing, and can know nothing? We live in a\nworld which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each\nand all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence\nsomewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he\nentered it. To do this effectually, it is necessary to be fully\npossessed of only two beliefs: the first, that the order of nature is\nascertainable by our faculties to an extent which is practically\nunlimited; the second, that our volitions count for something as a\ncondition of the course of events. Each of these beliefs can be verified\nexperimentally, as often as we like to try. Each, therefore, stands upon\nthe strongest foundation upon which any belief can rest, and forms one\nof our highest truths.\"\n\nThe first words in the Mosaic account are:[20] \"In the beginning God\ncreated the heaven and the earth.\"[21] It is seen, then, that the\nso-called revelation points to a beginning. The beginning referred to is\nan absolute beginning, for we find: \"In the beginning was the Word, and\nthe Word was with God, and the Word was God.\"[22] * * * \"All things were\nmade by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.\"[23]\nScience points also to a beginning.\n\nGeology points to a time when man did not inhabit the earth; when for\nhim there was a beginning. So, too, for lower organisms; so, too, for\nthe rocky minerals; so, too, for the round world itself. But the\nbeginning that science points to is not an absolute beginning. Science\nhas to start from some point, and that point must have a scientific\nfoundation--the foundation of science is matter, which is inseparable\nfrom form and force. Natural science teaches that matter is eternal and\nimperishable; for experience has never shown us that even the smallest\nparticle of matter has come into existence or passed away. \"A\nnaturalist,\" says Haeckel, \"can no more imagine the coming into\nexistence of matter than he can imagine its disappearance, and he\ntherefore looks upon the existing quantity of matter in the universe as\na given fact.\" \"The creation of matter, if, indeed,\" says Haeckel,[24]\n\"it ever took place, is completely beyond human comprehension, and can\ntherefore never become a subject of scientific inquiry. We can as little\nimagine a _first beginning_ of the eternal phenomena of the motion of\nthe universe as of its final end.\"[25] It is evident, then, that the\nabsolute beginning of the universe and its absolute end are not\nquestions of science, and can be known only as revealed by faith. Paul\nsays: \"By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of\nGod, so that things which are seen were not made of things which\nappeared.\"[26]\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Tailed Apes (Menocerca). Proboscis\nMonkey (Presbytes larvatus). (Mammalia.)--_Louis Figuier._\n\nThe natives of Borneo pretend that these monkeys, or, as sometimes\ncalled, Kahan, are men who have retired to the woods to avoid paying\ntaxes; and they entertain the greatest respect for a being who has found\nsuch ready means of evading the responsibilities of society.--_Figuier._]\n\n\n[Illustration: GIBBON. ORANG. CHIMPANZEE. GORILLA. MAN.\n\nFIG. I.--Photographically reduced from diagrams of the natural size\n(except that of the Gibbon, which was twice as large as nature), drawn\nby _Waterhouse Hawkins_, from specimens in the museum of the Royal\nCollege of Surgeons. (_Huxley's_ \"Man's Place in Nature.\")]\n\n\nIf, therefore, science makes the \"history of creation\" its highest and\nmost difficult and most comprehensible problem, it must deal with \"_the\ncoming into being of the form_ of natural bodies.\" Let us look for a\nminute at Kant's Cosmogony, or, as Haeckel says,[27] Kant's Cosmological\nGas Theory: \"This wonderful theory,\" says Haeckel, \"harmonizes with all\nthe general series of phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no\nirreconcilable contradiction to any one of them. Moreover, it is purely\nmechanical and monistic, makes use exclusively of the inherent forces\nof eternal matter, and entirely excludes every supernatural process,\nevery prearranged and conscious action of a personal creator.\" Compare\nthis last statement with the following: \"I will, however,\" says\nHaeckel,[28] \"not deny that Kant's grand cosmogony has some weak\npoints.\" * * * \"A great unsolved difficulty lies in the fact that the\ncosmological gas theory furnishes no starting-point at all in\nexplanation of the first impulse which caused the rotary motion in the\ngas-filled universe.\"\n\nWhewell[29] has pointed out, that the nebular hypothesis is null without\na creative act to produce the inequality of distribution of cosmic\nmatter in space.\n\nIt is seen, then, that according to Kant's theory we are to suppose that\nmillions of years ago there appeared a nebulous mass possessing a rotary\nmotion, and unequally distributed through space. This is what science\ncalls a beginning, and may assert that every physical event of a hundred\nmillion of ages existed potentially in that nebulous mass. But this is\nreally no explanation of the ultimate and real cause of anything. Reason\ndemands the cause of this beginning, the source that gave to the\nnebulous mass its rotary motion; the power that distributed the matter\nin space; the antecedents of the cosmical vapor. In absence of\nantecedents, what was the cause of this fire-mist--of these forces\nactive in it? Reason will never remain satisfied until these questions\nare answered. But physical science can trace the thread no further back,\nand must be dumb to all ulterior inquiries. It is true, then, as\nphysicists assert, \"that their science does not mount actually to God.\"\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Represents Man-like Apes (Anthropoides). The\nMale Gorilla. (Natural History, by _Duncan_.)]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. II.--Represents Ape-like Men (Pithecanthropi).\nImaginative. (From Scientific American.)]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. III.--Men (Homines). From Woolly-haired Men\ndeveloped the Papuans. (Scientific American, March 11, 1876.)]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--The Monkey Men of Dourga Strait. (Natural\nHistory, by _Rev. Dr. Wood_.)]\n\n\nTo God then, in strict accordance with our reason, is to be attributed\nnot only the origination of matter, but all its future developments.\nWhen I speak of matter, it must be understood that I mean force;\nfor \"if matter were not force, and immediately known as force, it could\nnot be known at all, could not be rationally inferred. The operation of\nforce could furnish no evidence of the existence of forceless matter. If\nforce is not matter, then force can exist and operate without matter;\nits existence and operation are no evidence of the existence of matter.\nAnd as matter is forceless, it can itself give no evidence of its own\nexistence, for that would be an exercise of force. If force cannot exist\nand operate without matter, then force depends for its existence and\noperation on the forceless, which destroys itself; or force depends for\nits existence on matter as some property or force, and so matter and\nforce are identified, and force depends on itself only, as it must.\"[30]\nThe idea, then, that force is an attribute of matter and inherent in it,\nis absurd, for there is not a shadow of evidence that force is or can be\nan attribute of matter. We have no knowledge of the origin of any force\nsave of that which emanates from human volition. All our knowledge of\nforce presents it as an effort of intelligent will. \"We are driven,\"\nsays Winchell, \"by the necessary laws of thought, to pronounce those\nenergies styled gravitation, heat, chemical affinity and their\ncorrelates, nothing less than intelligent will. But as it is not human\nwill which energizes in whirlwind and the comet, it must be divine\nwill.\" \"In all cases, the creative power of God is an act of power, and\nthe power does not perish with its inception, but continues to operate\nuntil the act is reversed and undone; so that everything that God has\ncreated constitutes a positive and intrinsic force, though borrowed from\nHim. Every incident runs back to God as its originator and real cause.\nThe true philosophical doctrine makes God distinct from all his works,\nand yet acting in them. This doctrine has been held by the greatest\nthinkers the world has ever produced, such as Descartes, Lerbrisky,\nBerkeley, Herschel, Faraday, and a multitude of others.\" \"It seems to be\nrequired,\" says Dr. McCosh, \"by that deep law of causation which not\nonly prompts us to seek for a law in everything but an adequate cause,\nto be found only in an intelligent mind.\" \"Our greatest American\nthinker, Jonathan Edwards,\" says Dr. McCosh, (whom I can claim as my\npredecessor,) \"maintains that, as an image in a mirror is kept up by a\nconstant succession of rays of light, so nature is sustained by a\nconstant forth-putting of the divine power. In this view Nature is a\nperpetual creation. God is to be seen not only in creation at first, but\nin the continuance of all things.\" \"They continue to this day according\nto Thine ordinances.\"\n\nReturning now to the history of the creation given by Moses, Haeckel\nsays, \"Although Moses looks upon the results of the great laws of\norganic development as the direct actions of a constructing Creator, yet\nin his theory there lies hidden the ruling idea of a progressive\ndevelopment and a differentiation of the originally simple matter. We\ncan therefore bestow our just and sincere admiration on the Jewish\nlawgiver's grand insight into nature, without discovering in it a\nso-called 'divine revelation.' That it cannot be such is clear from the\nfact that two great fundamental errors are asserted in it, namely, first\nthe _geocentric_ error, that the earth is the fixed central point of the\nwhole universe, round which the sun, moon and stars move; and secondly,\nthe _anthropocentric_ error that man is the premeditated aim of the\ncreation of the world, for whose service alone all the rest of nature is\nsaid to have been created. The former of these errors was demolished by\nCopernicus' System of the Universe in the beginning of the sixteenth\ncentury, the latter by Lamarck's Doctrine of Descent in the beginning of\nthe nineteenth century.\"\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Australian Savage.--_Orton._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. II.--Skull of Orang-utan (Simia satyrus).--_Orton._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. III.--Skull of Chimpanzee (Troglodytes niger).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. IV.--Skull of Gorilla.--_Duncan._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. V.--Skull of European.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. VI.--Skull of Negro.--_Orton._]\n\n\nProf. Huxley, in his lecture on \"Evidences of Evolution,\" spoke of the\nMosaic account as Milton's hypothesis. First, \"because,\" says Huxley,\n\"we are now assured upon the authority of the highest critics, and even\nof dignitaries of the church, that there is no evidence whatever that\nMoses ever wrote this chapter, or knew anything about it;\" and second,\nas this hypothesis is presented in Milton's work on \"Paradise Lost,\" it\nis appropriate to call it the Miltonic Hypothesis. \"In the Miltonic\naccount,\" says Huxley, \"the order in which animals should have made\ntheir appearance in the stratified rocks would be this: Fishes,\nincluding the great whale, and birds; after that all the varieties of\nterrestrial animals. Nothing could be further from the facts as we find\nthem. As a matter of fact we know of not the slightest evidence of the\nexistence of birds before the jurassic and perhaps the triassic\nformations. If there were any parallel between the Miltonic account and\nthe circumstantial evidence, we ought to have abundant evidence in the\ndevonian, the silurian, and carboniferous rocks. I need not tell you\nthat this is not the case, and that not a trace of birds makes its\nappearance until the far later period which I have mentioned. And again,\nif it be true that all varieties of fishes, and the great whales and the\nlike, made their appearance on the fifth day, then we ought to find the\nremains of these things in the older rocks--in those which preceded the\ncarboniferous epoch. Fishes, it is true, we find, and numerous ones; but\nthe great whales are absent, and the fishes are not such as now live.\nNot one solitary species of fish now in existence is to be found there,\nand hence you are introduced again to the difficulty, to the dilemma,\nthat either the creatures that were created then, which came into\nexistence the sixth day, were not those which are found at present, or\nare not the direct and immediate predecessors of those which now exist;\nbut in that case you must either have had a fresh species of which\nnothing has been said, or else the whole story must be given up as\nabsolutely devoid of any circumstantial evidence.\"\n\nIt is for these and many other reasons that I feel bound to omit the\nMosaic account, no matter how near some portions of it coincide with the\nfacts the earth has opened out to the scientist.\n\n\nKANT'S COSMOGONY.\n\nIt is maintained by Kant's Cosmogony that every substance, be it solid\nor liquid, constituting the entire universe, was, inconceivable ages\nago, in their homogeneous gaseous or nebulous condition. Owing to an\nimpulse being given to the nebulous mass, it acquired a rotary movement,\nwhich divided the nebulous mass up into a number of masses which, owing\nto the rotation, acquired greater density than the remaining gaseous\nmass, and then acted on the latter as central points of attraction. Our\nsolar system was thus a gigantic gaseous or nebulous ball, all the\nparticles of which revolved around a common central point--the solar\nnucleus. This nebulous ball assumed by its continual rotation a more or\nless flattened spheroidal form. By the continual revolution of this\nmass, under the influence of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, a\ncircular nebular ring separated (like the present ring around Saturn)\nfrom the rotating ball. In time the nebulous ring condensed to a planet,\nwhich began to revolve around its own axis. When the centrifugal force\nbecame more powerful than the centripetal force in the planet, rings\nwere formed, which, in turn, formed planets which revolved around their\naxes, as also around their planets, as the latter moved around the sun,\nand thus arose the moons, only one of which moves around our earth,\nwhile four move around Jupiter and six around Uranus. This order of\nthings was repeated over and over again until thereby arose the\ndifferent solar systems--the planets rotating around their central suns,\nand the satellites or moons moving around their planets. By a continuous\nincreasing of refrigeration and condensation, a fiery fluid or molten\nstate occurred in these rotating bodies. They then emitted an enormous\namount of heat by rapid condensation, and the rotating bodies--suns,\nplanets, and moons--soon became glowing balls of fire, emitting light\nand heat. The 1/1000 part of a pound of magnesium wire, burning in the\nopen air, will give a light which will last during one second, and can\nbe seen at a distance of thirty miles; imagine, then, what the light\nwould be from these huge balls of fire floating through space. The earth\nforms a small part--nay, even the sun whose mass is equal to 354,936\nearths like ours, is but an infinitesimal portion of the whole. By the\ncontinual emitting of heat, however, these fiery balls had a crust form\non the outside, which enclosed a fiery fluid nucleus. The crust for a\ntime must have been a smooth sheet, but afterward very uneven, having\nprotuberances and cavities form over its surface, owing to the molten\nmass within becoming condensed and contracted; the crust not following\nthis change sufficiently close, must have fallen in, and thus produced\nthe cavities.\n\n\n[Illustration: Mongolian.]\n\n[Illustration: Malay.]\n\n[Illustration: Ethiopian.]\n\n[Illustration: American Indian.]\n\n[Illustration: FACIAL ANGLE, by _Prof. Nelson Sizer_. 1, Snake; 2, Dog;\n3, Elephant; 4, Ape; 5, Human Idiot; 6, The Bushman; 7, The\nUncultivated; 8, The Improved; 9, The Civilized; 10, The Enlightened;\n11, The Caucasian (highest type).]\n\n[Illustration: Caucasian (after _Van Evrie_).]\n\n[Illustration: Head of Nose-Ape (after _Brehm_).]\n\n[Illustration: Julia Pastrana (Photographed by _Hintye_).]\n\n[Illustration: Living Idiot (on Blackwell's Island).]\n\n\nAll the time, by the condensation, the diameter of the earth was being\ndiminished. The irregular cooling of the crust caused irregular\ncontractions on the surface, and as the diameter of the molten mass\nwithin was continually diminishing, many elevations and depressions were\ncaused, which were the foundations of mountains and valleys.\n\nAfter the temperature of the earth had been reduced by the thickening of\nthe crust--when it became sufficiently cool--the water which existed in\nsteam was condensed and precipitated, falling in torrents, washing down\nthe elevations, filling the depressions with the mud carried along, and\ndepositing it in layers. It was not until the earth became covered with\nwater that life was possible in any form, as both animals and plants\nconsist to a very great extent of water. At this stage in the history of\nthe earth, then, the little mass of protoplasm, which we have spoken so\nmuch about, came into existence in all probability, as has been stated,\nby spontaneous generation.\n\n\nLAWS OF EVOLUTION.\n\nLet us now examine some of the laws of evolution, as also some of the\nconnecting links which blend one stage of man's development with\nanother, which at first thought would seem unexplainable.\n\nHaeckel[31] summarizes the inductive evidences of Darwinism as follows:\n1. Paleontological series (phylogeny); 2. Embryological development of\nthe individual (ontogeny); 3. The correspondence in the terms of these\ntwo series; 4. Comparative anatomy (typical forms and structures); 5.\nCorrespondence between comparative anatomy and ontogeny; 6. Rudimentary\norgans (dipeliology); 7. The natural system of organisms (classification);\n8. Geographical distribution (chorology); 9. Adaptation to the environment\n(oecology); 10. The unity of biological phenomena.\n\nIt will of course be impossible to consider even hastily all of the\ninductive evidence belonging to the several groups mentioned above, for\nthe scope of this work would not permit of it. Only such facts as\npresent themselves most forcibly to the mind will be considered.\n\nDarwinism, as has already been stated, is not the doctrine of evolution;\nit is, however, a successful attempt to explain the law or manner of\nevolution. The _law of natural selection_, pointed out by Darwin, is\ncalled by Herbert Spencer, _The struggle for existence_. Darwin\ndiscovered that natural selection produces fitness between organisms and\ntheir circumstances, which explains the law of _the survival of the\nfittest_.\n\nIt is a well-known fact that man can, by pursuing a certain method of\nbreeding or cultivation, improve and in various ways modify the\ncharacter of the different domestic animals and plants. By always\nselecting the best specimen from which to propagate the race, those\nfeatures which it is desired to perpetuate become more and more\ndeveloped; so that what are admitted to be real varieties sometimes\nacquire, in the course of successive generations, a character as\nstrikingly distinct, to all appearances, from those of the varieties, as\none species is from another species of the same genus. It is evident\nthat both natural and artificial selection depends on adaptation and\ninheritance. The difference between the two forms of selection is that,\nin the first case, the will of man makes the selection according to a\nplan, whereas in natural selection the struggle for life and the\nsurvival of the fittest acts without a plan other than that the most\nadaptable organism shall survive which is most fit to contend with the\ncircumstances under which it is placed. Natural selection acts,\ntherefore, much more slowly than artificial selection, although it\nbrings about the same end. Adaptation in the struggle for life is an\nabsolute necessity.\n\nIn every act of breeding, a certain amount of protoplasm is transferred\nfrom the parents to the child, and along with it there is transferred\nthe individual peculiar molecular motion. Adaptation or transmutation\ndepends upon the material influence which organism experiences from its\nsurroundings, or its conditions of existence; while the transmission\nfrom inheritance is due to the partial identity of producing and\nproduced organisms.\n\nOrganized beings, as a rule, are gifted with enormous powers of\nincrease. Wild plants yield their crop of seed annually, and most wild\nanimals bring forth their young yearly or oftener. Should this process\ngo on unchecked, in a short time the earth would be completely overrun\nwith living beings. It has been calculated that if a plant produces\nfifty seeds (which is far below the reproductive capacity of many\nplants) the first year, each of these seeds growing up into a plant\nwhich produces fifty seeds, or altogether two thousand five hundred\nseeds the next year, and so on, it would under favorable conditions of\ngrowth give rise in nine years to more plants by five hundred trillions\nthan there are square feet of dry land upon the surface of the earth.\n\nSlow-breeding man has been known to double his number in twenty-five\nyears, and according to Euler, this might occur in little over twelve\nyears. But assuming the former rate of increase, and taking the\npopulation of the United States at only thirty millions, in six hundred\nand eighty-five years their living progeny would have each but a square\nfoot to stand upon, were they spread over the entire globe, land and\nwater included. But millions of species are doing the same thing, so\nthat the inevitable result of this strife cannot be a matter of chance.\nEvidently those individuals or varieties having some advantage over\ntheir competitors will stand the best chance to live, while those\ndestitute of these advantages will be liable to destruction. Nature may\nbe said (metaphorically) to choose (like the will of man in artificial\nselection) which shall be preserved and which destroyed.\n\nThat portion of the theory of development which maintains the common\ndescent of all species of animals and plants from the simplest common\norigin, I have already stated with full justice should be called\nLamarckism. Progress is recognized by all scientists to be a law of\nnature. Some of the more important facts which sustain the theory of\ndevelopment, I propose now to present as briefly as possible.\n\n\nRUDIMENTARY ORGANS.\n\nOne of the strongest arguments in favor of the hypothesis of a genetic\nconnection among all animals (including man), at least among all those\nbelonging to the same great types, is the presence of rudimentary parts.\nBy rudiments in anatomy are meant organs or structures imperfectly\ndeveloped, so as to be almost or entirely without functional use. \"Each\nof them represents in germ, as it were, in one animal (or plant), that\nwhich is perfect and useful in another type.\"\n\nFor a few examples: The little fold of caruncle at the inner margin of\nthe eye in man, represents the nictitating membrane of birds. Eyes which\ndo not see form a striking example. These are found in very many animals\nwhich live in the dark, as in caves or underground. Their eyes are often\nperfectly developed but are covered by a membrane, so that no ray of\nlight can enter and they can never see. Such eyes, without the function\nof sight, are found in several species of moles and mice which live\nunderground, in serpents and lizards, in amphibious animals (proteus,\nc\u00e6cilia) and in fishes; also in numerous invertebrate animals which pass\ntheir lives in the dark, as do many beetles, crabs, snails, worms, etc.\n\nOther rudimentary organs are the wings of animals which cannot fly. For\nexample, the wings of the running birds, like the ostrich, emeu,\ncassowary, etc., the legs of which become exceedingly developed. The\nmuscles which move the ears of animals are still present in man, but of\ncourse are of no use; by continual practice persons have been able to\nmove their ears by these muscles. The rudiment of the tail of animals\nwhich man possesses in his 3-5 tail vertebr\u00e6, is another rudimentary\npart--in the human embryo it stands out prominently during the first two\nmonths of its development; it afterwards becomes hidden. \"The\nrudimentary little tail of man is irrefutable proof that he is descended\nfrom tailed ancestors.\" In woman the tail is generally, by one vertebra,\nlonger than in man. There still exists rudimentary muscles in the human\ntail which formerly moved it.\n\nAnother case of human rudimentary organs, only belonging to the male,\nand which obtains in like manner in all mammals, is furnished by the\nmammary glands on the breast, which, as a rule, are active only in the\nfemale sex. However, cases of different mammals are known, especially of\nmen, sheep and goats, in which the mammary glands were fully developed\nin the male sex, and yield milk as food for their offspring. The\nvermiform appendix of the large intestine in man, is another\nillustration of a part which has no use, but in one marsupial is three\ntimes the length of its body. The rudimentary covering of hair over\ncertain portions of the body, is not without interest. Over the body we\nfind but a scanty covering, which is thick only on the head, in the\narmpits, and on some other parts of the body. The short hairs on the\ngreater part of the body are entirely useless, and are the last scanty\nremains of the hairy covering of our ape ancestors. Both on the upper\nand lower arm the hairs are directed toward the elbow, where they meet\nat an obtuse angle--this striking arrangement is only found in man and\nthe anthropoid apes, the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, and several species\nof gibbons. The fine short hairs on the body become developed into\n\"thickset, long, and rather coarse dark hairs,\" when abnormally\nnourished near old-standing inflamed surfaces.[32] The fine wool-like\nhair or so-called lanugo with which the human foetus, during the fifth\nand sixth months, is thickly covered, offers another proof that man\nis descended from an animal which was born hairy, and remained so during\nlife. This covering is first developed during the fifth month, on the\neyebrows and face, and especially around the mouth, where it is much\nlonger than that on the head. Three or four cases have been recorded of\npersons born with their whole bodies and faces thickly covered with fine\nlong hairs. Prof. Alex. Brandt compared the hair from the face of a man\nthus characterized, aged thirty-five, with the lanugo of a foetus, and\nfinds it quite similar in texture. Eschricht[33] has devoted great\nattention to this rudimentary covering, and has thrown much light on the\nsubject. He showed that the female as well as the male foetus\npossessed this hairy covering, showing that both are descended from\nprogenitors, both sexes of whom were hairy. Eschricht also showed, as\nstated above, that the hair on the face of the fifth month foetus is\nlonger on the face than on the head, which indicates that our semi-human\nprogenitors were not furnished with long tresses, which must therefore\nhave been a late acquisition. The question naturally arises, is there\nany explanation for the loss of hair covering?\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--The Hairy-Faced Burmese Family. (From Scientific\nAmerican, Feb. 20, 1875.)]\n\n\nDarwin is of the opinion that the absence of hair on the body is, to a\ncertain extent, a secondary sexual character; for, in all parts of the\nworld, women are less hairy than men. He says: \"Therefore we may\nreasonably suspect that this character has been gained through sexual\nselection.\" As the body in woman is less hairy than in man, and as this\ncharacter is common to all races, we may conclude that it was our female\nsemi-human ancestors who were first divested of hair.\n\nProfessor Grant Allen[34] has given much study to the subject of the\nloss of hair in the human being; and his investigations are worthy of\ncareful consideration. He shows conclusively that those parts of an\nanimal which are in constant contact with other objects are specially\nliable to lose their hair. This is noticeable on the under surface of\nthe body of all animals which habitually lie on the stomach. The soles\nof the feet of all mammals where they touch the ground are quite\nhairless; the palms of the hands in the quadrumana present the same\nappearance. The knees of those species which frequently kneel, such as\ncamels and other ruminants, are apt to become bare and hard-skinned. The\nfriction of the water has been the means of removing the hair from many\naquatic mammals--the whales, porpoises, dugongs, and manatees are\nexamples.\n\nAs the back of man forms the specially hairless region of his body, we\nmust conclude that it is in all probability the first part which became\nentirely denuded of hair. The gorilla, according to Professor Gervais,\nis the only mammal which agrees with man in having the hair thinner on\nthe back, where it is partly rubbed off, than on the lower surface. Du\nChaillu states that he has \"himself come upon fresh traces of a\ngorilla's bed on several occasions, and could see that the male had\nseated himself with his back against a tree-trunk.\" He also says: \"In\nboth male and female the hair is found worn off the back; but this is\nonly found in very old females. This is occasioned, I suppose, by their\nresting at night against trees, at whose base they sleep.\" The gorilla\nhas only very partially acquired the erect position, and probably sits\nbut little in the attitude common to man. In man the case is different;\nin proportion as his progenitors grew more and more erect, he must have\nlain less and less upon his stomach, and more and more upon his back or\nsides, and this is seen in the savage man during his lazy hours--who\nstretches himself on the ground in the sun, with his back propped, where\npossible, by a slight mound or the wall of his hut. The continual\nfriction of the surface of the back would arrest the growth of hair; for\nhair grows where there is normally less friction, and _vice vers\u00e2_.\n\nAs man became more and more hairless, especially among savage and naked\nraces, we should conclude that such a modification would be considered a\nbeauty, and women would select such men in preference to more hairy\nindividuals. The New Zealand proverb is: \"There is no woman for a hairy\nman.\" Sexual selection, then, would play a very important part; and the\ndifficulty of understanding how man became divested of hair is readily\nexplained.\n\nHaeckel says: \"Even if we knew absolutely nothing of the other phenomena\nof development, we should be obliged to believe in the truth of the\ntheory of descent, solely on the ground of the existence of rudimentary\norgans.\"\n\n\nREPRODUCTION BY MEANS OF EGGS.\n\nIt might be thought there existed a missing link between animals which\nlay eggs and those which do not; this, however, is done away with in\nmany instances--one, for example, is found in our commonest indigenous\nsnake. The ringed snake lays eggs which require three weeks time to\ndevelop; but when it is kept in captivity, and no sand is strewn in the\ncage, it does not lay eggs, but retains them until the young ones are\ndeveloped. This only shows how powerfully influences affect the habit of\nanimals.\n\n\nDOUBLE-SEXED INDIVIDUALS.\n\nAnother difficulty might be supposed to arise between animals which\nproduce themselves other than by sexual reproduction. This has already\nbeen slightly touched upon; and it has been shown that numerous plants\nand animals propagate themselves through their double-sexed organs. It\noccurs in a great majority of plants, but only in a minority of animals;\nfor example, the garden-snail, leeches, earth-worms, and many other\nworms. Every garden-snail produces in one part of its sexual gland eggs,\nand in another part sperm.\n\nParthenogenesis offers an interesting form of transition from sexual\nreproduction to the non-sexual formation of germ-cells (which most\nresembles it). It has been demonstrated to occur in many cases among\ninsects, especially by Seebold's excellent investigations. Among the\ncommon bees, a male individual (a drone) arises out of the eggs of the\nqueen, if the eggs have not been fructified; a female (a queen or\nworking bee), if the egg has been fructified.\n\nGonochorismus or sexual separation, which characterizes the more\ncomplicated of the two kinds of sexual reproduction, has evidently been\ndeveloped from the condition of hermaphroditism at a late period of the\norganic history of the world. In this case the female individual in both\nanimal and plant produces eggs or egg-cells. In animals, the male\nindividual secretes the fructifying sperm (sperma); in plants, the\ncorpuscles, which correspond to the sperm.\n\n\nINHERITANCE.\n\nThe remarkable facts of inheritance, extending to the reproduction of\nunimportant peculiarities of parts or organs (rudimentary parts)\nmentioned above, and the occasional outbreak of ancestral characters\nthat have been dormant through several generations (some of which I will\nmention further on), might be thought perfectly unexplainable; but they\nare readily accounted for by the supposition that each part of an\norganism contributes its constituent and effective molecules to the germ\nand sperm particles. Mr. Sorby made numerous investigations with\nrelation to the number of molecules in the germinal matter of eggs, and\nthe spermatic matter supplied by the male. Omitting the alkali, Mr.\nSorby takes the formula, C{72}H{112}N{18}SO{22}, as representing the\ncomposition of albumen. In a 1/2000 of an inch cube, he reckons--\n\n  Albumen     18,000,000,000,000 molecules.\n  Water      992,000,000,000,000     \"\n           --------------------------------\n           1,010,000,000,000,000 molecules.\n\nOr, in a sphere of the same diameter, 530,000,000,000,000 of the two\ncomponents. Taking a single mammalian spermatozoon, having a mean\ndiameter of 1/6000 of an inch; \"it might contain two and a half million\nof such gemmules. If these were lost, destroyed, or fully developed at\nthe rate of one in each second, this number would be exhausted in about\none month; but since a number of spermatozoa appears to be necessary to\nproduce perfect fertilization, it is quite easy to understand that the\nnumber of gemmules introduced into the ovum may be so great that the\ninfluence of the male parent may be very marked, even after having been,\nas regards particular character, apparently dormant for many years.\" The\ngerminal vesicle of a mammalian ovum being about 1/1000 of an inch, mean\ndiameter, might contain five hundred million of gemmules, which, if used\nup at the rate of one per second, would last more than seventeen years.\nIf the whole ovum, about 1/150 in diameter, were all gemmules, the\nnumber would be sufficient to last, at this rate, one per second for\n5,600 years! This, however, is not probable; but Mr. Sorby's remarks has\ncompletely removed all doubt as to its physical possibility from the\nDarwinian theory; \"and they prompt us,\" says Slack, \"to a wonderful\nconception of the powers residing in minute quantities of matter.\"\n\nThe laws of inheritance are divisible into two series, conservative and\nprogressive transmission; the laws of adaptation to direct (active) or\nindirect (potential) adaptation.\n\nExternal causes often influence the reproductive system, especially in\norganism propagating in a sexual way. This can be strikingly shown in\nartificially produced monstrosities. Monstrosities can be produced by\nsubjecting the parental organism to certain extraordinary conditions of\nlife; and curiously enough, such an extraordinary condition of life does\nnot produce a change of the organism itself, but a change in its\ndescendants. The new formation exists in the parental organism only as a\npossibility (potential); in the descendants it becomes a reality\n(actual). Most commonly, monstrosities with very abnormal forms are\nsterile, but there are instances where they reproduce their kind and\nbecome a species.[35] Geoffroy St. Hilaire, who perhaps made the deepest\ninvestigations ever conducted into the nature and causes of their\nproduction, first conceived the idea of artificially producing them, and\nto this end he began modifications of the physical conditions of the\nevolution of the chicken during natural and artificial incubation. He\ndetermined the fact that monsters could be produced in this way, but\nscarcely carried his investigation further. This work has been taken up\nby M. Dareste, and he has lately published a volume in Paris which\nrecounts the results of a quarter of a century's experimenting. Eggs, he\nstates, were submitted to incubation in a vertical instead of a\nhorizontal position; they were covered with varnish in certain places so\nas to stop or modify evaporation and respiration. The evolution of the\nchick was rendered slower by a temperature below that of the normal heat\nof incubation. Finally, eggs were warmed only at one point, so that\nthe young animal, during development, was submitted at different\nparts to variable temperatures.\n\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 1.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 2.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 3.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 4.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 5.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 6.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 7.]\n\n[Illustration: Fig. 8.]\n\n\nThese perturbations resulted in the most curious and unlooked for\ndeformities in the embryo, some being not alone peculiar to the bird,\nbut being similar to those which have been recognized in many other\nanimals, and even in the human species. The data obtained have been\ndeemed so important that M. Dareste has recently received the Lacaze\nprize for physiology from the French Academy of Sciences.\n\nIt would be impossible to review even a fraction of the many forms of\nmonstrosities which M. Dareste has discovered. Those that we give will,\nhowever, suffice to convey an idea of the wonderful variations produced.\nFig. 1 is a chick embryo with the encephalon entirely outside the head,\nthe heart, liver, and gizzard outside the umbilical opening, right wing\nlifted up beside the head, and the development of the left one stopped.\nIn Fig. 2 the encephalon is herniated and marked with blood spots, the\neye is rudimentary and replaced by a spot of pigment, the upper beak is\nshorter than the lower one, while the heart, liver, etc., are all\noutside. In Figs. 3 and 4 the head is compressed, eyes well developed,\nbut in the back instead of in the sides of the head; the body is bent,\nabdominal intestines not closed, heart largely developed and herniated.\nThe literal references to the foregoing are: _am_, amnion; _al_,\nallantois; _v_, vitellus; _h_, encephalon; _i_, eye; _c_, heart; _f_,\nliver; _g_, gizzard; _ms_, upper, and _mi_, lower member.\n\nThe commonest case of monstrosity observed by M. Dareste has been that\nof the head protruding from the navel, and the heart or hearts above the\nhead. This is a most extraordinary and new monster, and, if it persist,\na chicken with its heart on its back, like a hump, may be expected. A\ncurious fact discovered is the duplicity of the heart at the beginning\nof incubation, two hearts, beating separately, being clearly seen.\nAnother anomaly consists in heads with a frontal swelling, which is\nfilled by the cerebral hemispheres.\n\nM. Dareste's artificial monsters are all produced from the single germ\nor cicatricule (as the white circular spot seen in the yellow of the\negg, and from which the embryo springs, is termed). He has not yet been\nable to determine artificially the production of monsters, the origin of\nwhich takes place in a peculiar state of the cicatricule before\nincubation. But having submitted to incubation some 10,000 eggs, he has\nobtained several remarkable examples of double monstrosities in process\nof formation, some representations of which are given herewith. Fig. 5\nshows three embryos, all derived from a single cicatricule. Fig. 6\nrepresents three embryos from two cicatricules. On one side of the line\nof junction are two imperfectly developed embryos, one having no heart.\nThe single embryo on the other side is generally normal, but has a heart\non the right side. In Fig. 7 are twins, one well formed, the heart\ncirculating colorless blood, the other having no heart and a rudimentary\nhead. Fig. 8 exhibits a double monster with lateral union. The heads are\nseparate, and there are three upper and three lower members, those of\nthe latter on the median line belonging equally to each of the pair.\n\n\nACQUIRED QUALITIES.\n\nWhen an organism has been subjected to abnormal conditions in life it\ncan transmit any peculiarity it may have acquired. This is, however, not\nalways possible, otherwise descendants of men who have lost their arm or\nleg would be born without the corresponding arm or leg--this shows that\nsome acquired qualities are more easily transmitted than\nothers--although there are cases, as, for instance, a race of dogs\nwithout tails has been produced by cutting off the tails of both sexes\nof the dog, during several generations. \"A few years ago,\" says Haeckel,\n\"a case occurred on an estate near Jena in which, by the careless\nslamming of a stable-door, the tail of a bull was wrenched off, and the\ncalves begotten by this bull were all born without a tail. This is\ncertainly an exception; but it is very important to note the fact that\nunder certain unknown conditions such violent changes are transmitted in\nthe same manner as many diseases.\" The transmission of diseases such as\nconsumption, madness, and albinism form examples. Albinoes are those\nindividuals who are distinguished by the absence of coloring matter from\ntheir skins; they are of frequent occurrence among men, animals and\nplants. Among many animals, such as rabbits and mice, albinoes with\nwhite fur and red eyes are so much liked that they are propagated. This\nwould be impossible were it not for the law of the transmission of\nadaptations. Hornless cattle have descended from a single bull born in\n1770 of horned parents, but whose absence of horns was the result of\nsome unknown cause.\n\nThe law of interrupted or latent transmission, as illustrated in\ngrandchildren who are like the grandparents, but quite unlike the\nparents. Animals often resume a form which have not existed for many\ngenerations. One of the most remarkable instances of this kind of\nreversion, or \"atavism,\" is the fact that in some horses there sometimes\nappear singular dark stripes similar to those of the zebra, quagga, and\nother wild species of African horse.\n\nNutrition directly modifies adaptation, as is well illustrated by\nanimals which have been bred for domestic or other purposes. If a farmer\nis breeding for fine wool he gives much different food to the sheep than\nhe would if he wished to obtain flesh or an abundance of fat. Even the\nbodily form of man is quite different according to its nutrition. Food\ncontaining much nitrogen produces little fat, that containing little\nnitrogen produces a great deal of fat. People who by means of Banting's\nsystem, at present so popular, wish to become thin, eat only meat and\neggs--no bread, no potatoes.\n\nMan can breed for milk in cattle, for feathers in pigeons, for colored\nflowers in plants, and, in fact, for almost any desirable quality.\n\n\nGEOLOGICAL RECORD.\n\n_The Geological Record_ (pal\u00e6ontology) furnishes weighty evidence of\nman's descent; for the circumstantial evidence derived from this source\nis written without the possibility of a mistake, with no chance of\nerror, on the stratified rocks. It is true that the geological record\nmust be incomplete, because it can only preserve remains found in\ncertain favorable localities, and under particular conditions; that this\nvaluable record must be destroyed by processes of denudation, and\nobliterated by processes of metamorphosis, it cannot be doubted. \"Beds\nof rock of any thickness, crammed full of organic remains, may yet,\"\nsays Huxley, \"by the percolation of water through them, or the influence\nof subterranean heat (if they descend far enough toward the centre of\nthe earth), lose all trace of these remains, and present the appearance\nof beds of rock formed under conditions in which there was no trace of\nliving forms. Such metamorphic rocks occur in formations of all ages;\nand we know with perfect certainty, when they do appear, that they have\ncontained organic remains, and that those remains have been absolutely\nobliterated.\" If we look at the geological record, we find:\n\nTHE FIRST EPOCH.--_The Archilithic_, or Primordial Epoch, constitutes\nthe _Age of Skull-less Animals and Sea-weed Forests_, and is made up of\nthe Laurentian, Cambrian, and Silurian Period.\n\nTHE SECOND EPOCH.--_The Pal\u00e6olithic_, or Primary Epoch, constitutes the\n_Age of Fishes and Fern Forests_, and is made up of the Devonian, Coal,\nand Permian Period.\n\nTHE THIRD EPOCH.--_The Mesolithic_, or Secondary Epoch, constitutes the\n_Age of Reptiles and Pine Forests, Conifer\u00e6_, and is made up of the\nTriassic, Jurassic, and Chalk Period.\n\nTHE FOURTH EPOCH.--_The C\u00e6nolithic_, or Tertiary Epoch, constitutes the\n_Age of Mammals and Leaf Forests_, and is made up of the Eocene,\nMiocene, and Phocene Period.\n\nTHE FIFTH EPOCH.--The _Anthropolithic_, or Quaternary Epoch, constitutes\nthe _Age of Man and Cultivated Forests,_ and is made up of the Glacial\nand Postglacial Period, and the Period of Culture.\n\nDuring the archilithic epoch the inhabitants of our planet, as has been\nalready stated, consisted of skull-less animals, or aquatic forms. No\nremains of terrestrial animals or plants, dated from this period, have\nas yet been found.\n\nThe archilithic period was longer than the whole long period between the\nclose of the archilithic and the present time; for if the total\nthickness of all sedimentary strata be estimated as about one hundred\nand thirty thousand feet, then seventy thousand feet belong to this\nepoch. It was during this epoch that the little mass of protoplasm,\nwhich has been so often spoken of, came into existence.\n\nIt has been stated above that pal\u00e6ontology is quite deficient. This is\nnot only true of the record, but of the lack as yet of sufficient\ninvestigations. The greatest fields of investigation in this department\nhave never been explored. The whole of the petrifactions accurately\nknown do not probably amount to a hundredth part of those which, by more\nelaborate explorations, are yet to be discovered. The most ancient of\nall distinctly preserved petrifactions is the Eozoon Canadense, which\nwas found in the lowest Laurentian strata in the Ottawa formation.\n\nProbably no discovery in pal\u00e6ontology ranks higher than the discovery of\nthe descendants of the horse. The horse, for example, as far as his\nlimbs and teeth go, differs far more from extant graminivora than man\ndiffers from the ape. Had not fossil ungulates been found, which\ndemonstrate the common origin of the horse with didactyles and\nmultidactyles, some would have deemed the horse a special miraculous\ncreation. But now the links are complete, and the descent of the horse\nis found to follow exactly what the doctrine of evolution could have\npredicted.\n\n\nONTOGENY.\n\nIt has been stated that the pal\u00e6ontological record is quite incomplete,\nowing to many facts, some of which have been mentioned; fortunately, the\nhistory of the development of the organic individual, or ontogeny, comes\nin to fill up many deficiencies.\n\nOntogeny is a repetition of the principal forms through which the\nrespective individuals have passed from the beginning of their tribe,\nand its great advantage is that it reveals a field of information which\nit was impossible for the rocks to retain; for the petrification of the\nancient ancestors of all the different animal and vegetable species,\nwhich were soft, tender bodies, was not possible.\n\nThe annexed plate illustrates the dog, rabbit, and man in their first\nstages of development. Illustrations of a fish, an amphibious animal, a\nreptile, a bird, or any mammal, could also be given; for all vertebrate\nanimals of the most different classes, in their early stages of\ndevelopment, cannot be distinguished, and the nearer the animal\napproaches man in the ascending scale, the longer does this similarity\ncontinue to exist--when reptiles and birds are distinctly different from\nmammals, the dog and the man are almost identical.\n\nThe gill-arches of the fish exist in man, in dogs, in fowls, in\nreptiles, and in other vertebrate animals during the first stages of\ntheir development. Man also possesses, in his first stages, a real tail,\nas well as his nearest kindred--the tailless apes (orang-outang,\nchimpanzee, gorilla), and vertebrate animals in general. The tail, as\nhas been stated, man still retains, though hidden as a rudiment.\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Human Embryo.--_Ecker._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. II.--Embryo of Dog.--_Bischoff._]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. III.--Dog Embryo.--_Huxley._]\n\n[Illustration: FIGS. IV, V, and VI.--Embryo of Rabbit in three stages of\ndevelopment.--_Haeckel._]\n\n[Illustration: FIGS. VII, VIII, and IX.--Embryo of Man in three stages\nof development.--_Haeckel._ _v_, fore brain; _z_, twix brain; _m_,\nmiddle brain; _h_, hind brain; _n_, after brain; _r_, spinal marrow;\n_e_, nose; _a_, eye; _o_, ear; _k_, gillarches; _g_, heart; _w_,\nvertebral column; _f_, fore limbs; _b_, hind limbs; _s_, tail.]\n\n\n\"Man presents in his earliest stages of embryonic growth, a skeleton of\ncartilage, like that of the lamprey; also, five origins of the aorta and\nfive slits on the neck, like the _lamprey_ and the _shark_. Later, he\nhas but four aortic origins, and a heart now divided into two chambers,\nlike _bony fishes_; the optic lobes of his brain also having a very\nfish-like predominance in size. Three chambers of the heart and three\naortic origins follow, presenting a condition permanent in the\n_batrachia_; then two origins with enlarged hemispheres of the brain, as\nin _reptiles_. Four heart chambers and one aortic root on each side,\nwith slight development of the cerebellum, agree with the characters of\nthe _crocodiles_, and immediately present the special mammalian\nconditions, single aortic root, and the full development of the\ncerebellum. Later comes that of the cerebrum, also in its higher\nmammalian or human traits.\" At no time in the development of the egg,\nsave at the start, do the embryos of the various vertebra assume the\n_exact_ or _entire_ characteristics of one another, but they assimilate\nso closely that it requires the eye of the expert to distinguish them;\nand, as has already been stated, the more closely an animal resembles\nanother, the longer and the more intimately do their embryos resemble\none another; so that, for example, the embryo of the snake and of a\nlizard remain like one another longer than do those of a snake and of a\nbird; and the embryo of a dog and of a cat remain like one another for a\nfar longer period than do those of a dog and a bird, or a dog and an\nopossum, or even those of a dog and a monkey.\n\nSurely it must be admitted that the short brief history given by the\ndevelopment of the egg, is far more wonderful than phylogeny or the long\nand slow history of the development of the tribe, which has taken\nthousands of years. Compare this time with the time required for the\ndevelopment of the smallest mammals--the harvest mice which develops in\nthree weeks, or the smallest of all birds, the humming-bird, which quits\nthe egg on the twelfth day, or with man who passes through the whole\ncourse of his development in forty weeks, or with the rhinoceros who\nrequires 1-1/2 years, or the elephant who requires ninety weeks. How\ninsignificant are these various periods to the long period originally\nrequired; yet in these short periods the whole phylogeny is run through\nin the ontogeny or the history of the development of the egg.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ATTRIBUTES OF MAN.\n\n\nWe must now consider briefly some of the attributes of man, and see if\nhe really possesses attributes which are in no inferior degree possessed\nby animals. Before proceeding directly to the consideration of the\nattributes of man, it will be best to show the correlation that exists\nbetween what are called man's vital forces and the physical forces of\nnature. To do this let us choose three forms of its manifestation: these\nshall be heat evolved within the body; muscular energy or motion; and\nlastly, nervous energy or that form of force which, on the one hand,\nstimulates a muscle to contract, and on the other appears in forms\ncalled mental. It will not take any extensive argument to demonstrate\nthat the heat of the body does not differ from heat from any other\nsource. It is known that the food taken into the body contains potential\nenergy, which is capable of being in part converted into actual heat by\noxidation; and since we know that the food taken into the body is\noxidized by the oxygen of the air supplied by the lungs, the heat of the\nbody must be due to the slow oxidation of the carbon, perhaps also\nhydrogen, sulphur, and phosphorus in the food. Now since this so-called\nvital heat is developed by oxidation, is recognized by the same tests\nand applied to the same purposes as any other heat, it is as truly\ncorrelated to the other forces as when it has a purely physical origin.\nThe amoeboid activity of a white blood corpuscle is stimulated within\ncertain limits by heat. Hatching of eggs and the germination of seeds\nmay be likewise hastened or retarded by access or deprivation of heat.\nIt was considerations such as these which led to the doctrine of\ncorrelation of the vital and physical forces.\n\nWith respect to the muscular force exerted by an animal, it was supposed\nthat it was created by the animal. Dr. Frankland[36] says to this: \"An\nanimal can no more generate an amount of force capable of moving a grain\nof sand, than a stone can fall upwards or a locomotive drive a train\nwithout fuel.\" As the amount of CO{2} exhaled by the lungs is increased\nin the exact ratio of work done by the muscle, it cannot be doubted that\nthe actual force of the muscle is due to the converted potential energy\nof the food. Since every exertion of a muscle and nerves involves the\ndeath and decay of those tissues to a certain extent, as shown by the\nexcretions, Prof. Orton[37] has been led to say: \"An animal begins to\ndie the moment it begins to live.\" \"A muscle,\" says Barker,[38] \"is like\na steam-engine, is a machine for converting the potential energy of\ncarbon into motion; but unlike a steam-engine, the muscle accomplishes\nthis conversion directly, the energy not passing through the\nintermediate stages of heat. For this reason the muscle is the most\neconomical producer of mechanical force known.\" The muscles which give\nthe downward stroke of the wing of a bird are fastened to the\nbreastbone, and their power in proportion to the weight of the bird is\nas 10,000 to 1. This great power is needed, for the air is 770 times\nlighter than water; the hawk being able to travel 150 miles an hour.\n\nThe last of the so-called vital forces under consideration, is that\nproduced by the nerves and nervous centres. Barker says: \"In the nerve\nwhich stimulates a muscle to contract, this force is undeniably motion,\nsince it is propagated along this nerve from one extremity to the\nother.\" This force has been likened unto electricity, the gray or\ncellular matter being the battery, the white or fibrous matter the\nconductors. Du Bois Reymond[39] has demonstrated that this force is not\nelectricity, though by showing that its velocity is only ninety-seven\nfeet a second. The velocity varies, though, in different animals; it is,\naccording to Prof. Orton,[40] \"more rapid in warm-blooded than in\ncold-blooded animals, being nearly twice as fast in man as in the frog.\"\nWheatstone, by his method, gives the velocity of electricity in copper\nwire at 62,000 geographical miles per second; but as neither Fizeau,\nGould, Gonnelle and others could arrive at the same result, the method\nwas shown to be incorrect, and it remained for Dr. Siemen[41] to\ndiscover the true method, which gives the velocity just one-half that of\nWheatstone's estimate, or 31,000 geographical miles per second. In the\nopinion of Bence Jones, the propagation of a nervous impulse is a sort\n\"of successive molecular polarization, like magnetism.\" But that this\nagent is a force as analogous to electricity as is magnetism, is shown\nnot only by the fact that the transmission of electricity along a nerve\nwill cause the contraction of a muscle to which it leads, but also by\nthe important fact discovered by Marshall, that the contraction of a\nmuscle is excited by diminishing its normal electrical current,[42] a\nresult which could take place only with a stimulus, says Barker,\n\"closely allied to electricity. Nerve force must therefore be transmuted\npotential energy.\" Prof. Huxley says,[43] \"the results of recent\ninquiries into the structure of the nervous system of animals, converge\ntoward the conclusion that the nerve-fibres which we have hitherto\nregarded as ultimate elements of nervous tissue, are not such, but are\nsimply the visible aggregations of vastly more attenuated filaments, the\ndiameter of which dwindles down to the limits of our present microscopic\nvision, greatly as these have been extended by modern improvements of\nthe microscope; and that a nerve is, in its essence, nothing but a\nlinear tract of specially modified protoplasm between two points of an\norganism, one of which is able to affect the other by means of the\ncommunication so established. Hence it is conceivable that even the\nsimplest living being may possess a nervous system.\"\n\nHerbert Spencer[44] says all direct and indirect evidence \"justifies us\nin concluding that the nervous system consists of _one_ kind of matter.\nIn the gray tissue this matter exists in masses containing _corpuscles_,\nwhich are soft and have granules dispersed through them, and which,\nbesides being thus unstably composed, are placed so as to be liable to\ndisturbances to the greatest degree. In the white tissue this matter is\ncollected together in extremely slender _threads_ that are denser, that\nare uniform in texture, and that are shielded in an unusual manner from\ndisturbing forces, except at their two extremities.\"\n\nThe last consideration is that form of force (thought power) which\nappears in manifestations called mental. It must be noticed at the\noutset, that every external manifestation of thought force is a muscular\none, as a word spoken or written, a gesture, or an expression of the\nface always takes place; hence this force must be intimately correlated\nto nerve force. It is very certain, then, that thought force is capable\nin external manifestations of converting itself into actual motion. But\nhere the question arises, can it be manifested inwardly without such a\ntransformation of energy? Or is the evolution of thought entirely\nindependent of the matter of the brain?\n\nThis question can be answered by actual experiment, strange as it may\nappear. Experiments have demonstrated that any change of temperature\nwithin the skull was soonest manifested externally in that depression\nwhich exists just above the occipital protuberance. Here Lombard[45]\nfastened to the head at this point two little bars, one made of bismuth,\nthe other of an alloy of antimony and zinc, which were connected with a\ndelicate galvanometer;[46] to neutralize the result of a gradual rise of\ntemperature over the whole body, a second pair of bars, reversed in\ndirection, was attached to the leg or arm, so that if a like increase of\nheat came to both, the electricity developed by one would be neutralized\nby the other, and no effect would be produced by the needle unless only\none was affected. By long practice it was ascertained that a mental\ntorpor could be induced, lasting for hours, in which the needle remained\nstationary. But let a person knock on the door outside of the room, or\nspeak a single word, even though the experimenter remained absolutely\npassive, the reception of the intelligence caused the needle to swing\ntwenty degrees. \"In explanation of this production of heat,\" says\nBarker,[47] \"the analogy of the muscle at once suggests itself. No\nconversion of energy is complete, and as the heat of muscular action\nrepresents force which has escaped conversion into motion, so the heat\nevolved during the reception of an idea is energy which has escaped\nconversion into thought, from precisely the same cause.\" Dr. Lombard's\nexperiments have shown that the amount of heat developed by the\nrecitation to one's self of emotional poetry, was in every case less\nwhen recitation was oral; this is of course accounted for by the\nmuscular expression. Chemistry teaches that thought-force, like\nmuscle-force, comes from the food, and demonstrates that the force\nevolved by the brain, like that produced by the muscle, comes not from\nthe disintegration of its own tissue, but is the converted energy of\nburning carbon.[48] \"Can we longer doubt,\" says Barker,[49] \"that the\nbrain too, is a machine for the conversion of energy? Can we longer\nrefuse to believe that even thought force is in some mysterious way\ncorrelated to the other natural forces? and this even in the face of the\nfact that it has never yet been measured.[50] Have we not a right to ask\n'why a special force (vital force) should be needed to effect the\ntransformation of physical forces into those modes of energy which are\nactive in the manifestation of living beings, while no peculiar force is\ndeemed necessary to effect the transformation of one mode of physical\nforce into any other mode of physical force?\"\n\nRichard Owen says:[51] \"In the endeavor to clearly comprehend and\nexplain the functions of the combination of forces called 'brain,' the\nphysiologist is hindered and troubled by the views of the nature of\nthose cerebral forces which the needs of dogmatic theology have imposed\non mankind. * * * Religion, pure and undefiled, can best answer how far\nit is righteous or just to charge a neighbor with being unsound in his\nprinciples who holds the term 'life' to be a sound expressing the sum of\nliving phenomena, and who maintains these phenomena to be modes of\nforce into which other forms of force have passed from potential to\nactive states, and reciprocally, through the agency of the sums or\ncombinations of forces impressing the mind with the ideas signified by\nthe terms 'monad,' 'moss,' 'plant,' or 'animal.'\"\n\nWe have now shown that the very forces which give vent to the attributes\nof man, are correlated to the physical forces. Let us now consider his\nattributes as manifested by his mental powers. There is no doubt the\ndifference between the mental faculties of the ape and that of the\nlowest savage, who cannot express any number higher than four and who\nuses hardly any abstract terms for common objects or for the\naffections,[52] is still very great and would still be great, says\nDarwin, \"even if one of the higher apes had been improved or civilized\nas much as a dog has been in comparison with its parent form, the wolf\nor jackal.\" But when we examine the interval of mental power between one\nof the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or a lancelet, and one of the higher\napes, and recognize the fact that this interval is filled up by\nnumberless gradations, it does not become so difficult to understand the\ninterval between an ape and man, which is not by far so great. As in\nfinding out what is peculiar to a living body in distinction to a body\nnot living, we found it absurd to take man as the perfection of the\nanimal scale--the microscopic monad possessing life as well as him--so\nin the case of man's mental attributes, which have always been\nincreasing, always perfecting, since the first genuine man came into\nexistence, it would be equally absurd to compare the intellectual man of\nto-day with an ape to see what attributes he possesses which the ape\ndoes not possess; but if we go down in the scale and compare the savage\nwith the ape, the difficulty is not by far so great. It will be found\non close examination, though, that man and the higher animals,\nespecially the primates, have many instincts in common. \"All,\" says\nDarwin, \"have the same senses, intuitions and sensations; similar\npassions, affections, and emotions; even the more complex ones, such as\njealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude and magnanimity; they practice\ndeceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule\nand even have a sense of humor; they feel wonder and curiosity; they\npossess the same faculties of imitation, attention, deliberation,\nchoice, memory, imagination, the association of ideas, and reason,\nthough in very different degrees. The individuals of the same species\ngraduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high excellence; they\nare also liable to insanity, though far less often than in the case of\nman.\"[53] Nevertheless, in the face of these facts, many authors have\ninsisted that man is divided by an inseparable barrier from all the\nlower animals in his mental faculties. It only shows the improper or\nimperfect consideration of the subject they have under discussion.\n\nIt may be thought at first that some of the mental attributes mentioned\nabove are not possessed by animals. I therefore will briefly consider a\nfew of the more complex ones. We can dismiss the consideration of such\nattributes as happiness, terror, suspicion, courage, timidity, jealousy,\nshame, and wonder, as well-known attributes. _Curiosity_ in animals is\noften observed. An instance mentioned by Brehm will serve to illustrate:\nBrehm gives a curious account of the instinctive dread which his monkeys\nexhibited for snakes; but their curiosity was so great that they could\nnot desist from occasionally satiating their horror in a most human\nfashion, by lifting up the lid of the box in which the snakes were kept.\n_Imitation_ is also found among the action of animals, especially among\nmonkeys, which are well known to be ridiculous mockers.\n\nIt is unnecessary to refer to the faculty of attention, as it is common\nto almost all animals, and the same may be said of memory as for persons\nor places.\n\nOne would hesitate to believe an animal possesses _imagination_, but\nsuch is the case. Dreaming, it will be admitted, gives us the best\nnotion of this power. Now as dogs, cats, horses, and probably all the\nhigher animals, even birds, have vivid dreams--this is shown by their\nmovements and the sounds uttered--\"we must admit,\" says Darwin, \"they\npossess some power of imagination. There must be something special which\ncauses dogs to howl in the night, and especially during moonlight, in\nthat remarkable and melancholy manner, called baying. All dogs do not do\nso; and, according to Housyeau,[54] they do not look at the moon, but at\nsome fixed point near the horizon. Housyeau thinks that their\nimaginations are disturbed by the vague outlines of the surrounding\nobjects, and conjure up before them fantastic images; if this be so,\ntheir feelings may almost be called superstitious.\"\n\nThe next mental faculty is _reason_, which stands at the summit; but\nstill there are few persons who will deny that animals possess some\npower of reasoning. A few illustrations will be all that is necessary to\nsatisfy the inquiring mind on this point. Reugger, a most careful\nobserver, states that when he first gave eggs to his monkey in Paraguay\nthey smashed them, and thus lost much of their contents; afterward they\ngently hit one end against some hard body, and picked off the bits of\nshell with their fingers. After cutting themselves _once_ with any sharp\ntool, they would not touch it again, or would handle it with the\ngreatest caution. Lumps of sugar were often given them, wrapped up in\npaper; and Reugger sometimes put a live wasp in the paper, so that in\nhastily unfolding it they got stung; after this had _once_ happened,\nthey afterward first held the packet to their ears to detect any\nmovement within.\n\nThe following cases relating to dogs are described by Darwin: Mr.\nColquhoun winged two wild ducks, which fell on the farther side of a\nstream; his retriever tried to bring over both at once, but could not\nsucceed; she then, though never before known to ruffle a feather,\ndeliberately killed one, brought over the other, and returned for the\ndead bird. Colonel Hutchinson relates that two partridges were shot at\nonce--one being killed, the other wounded; the latter ran away, and was\ncaught by the retriever, who, on her return, came across the dead bird;\n\"she stopped, evidently greatly puzzled, and after one or two trials,\nfinding she could not take it up without permitting the escape of the\nwinged bird, she considered a moment, then deliberately murdered it by\ngiving it a severe crunch, and afterward brought away both together.\nThis was the only known instance of her ever having wilfully injured any\ngame. Here we have reason, though not quite perfect; for the retriever\nmight have brought the wounded bird first, and then returned for the\ndead one, as in the case of the two wild ducks. I give the above cases\nas resting on the evidence of two independent witnesses; and because in\nboth instances the retrievers, after deliberation, broke through a habit\nwhich was inherited by them (that of not killing the game retrieved),\nand because they show how strong their reasoning faculty must have been\nto overcome a fixed habit.\"[55]\n\nIt has often been said that no animal uses any tool, but this can be so\neasily refuted on reflection, that it is hardly worth while considering;\nfor illustration, though, the chimpanzee in a state of nature cracks\nnuts with a stone; Darwin saw a young orang put a stick in a crevice,\nslip his hand to the other end, and use it in a proper manner as a\nlever. The baboons in Abyssinia descend in troops from the mountains to\nplunder fields, and when they meet troops of another species a fight\nensues. They commence by rolling great stones at their enemies, as they\noften do when attacked with fire-arms.\n\nThe Duke of Argyll remarks that the fashioning of an implement for a\nspecial purpose is absolutely peculiar to man; and he considers this\nforms an immeasurable gulf between him and the brutes. \"This is no\ndoubt,\" says Darwin, \"a very important distinction; but there appears to\nme much truth in Sir J. Lubbock's suggestion,[56] that when primeval man\nfirst used flint-stones for any purpose, he would have accidentally\nsplintered them, and would then have used the sharp fragments. From this\nstep it would be a small one to break the flints on purpose, and not a\nvery wide step to fashion them rudely. The later advance, however, may\nhave taken long ages, if we may judge by the immense interval of time\nwhich elapsed before the men of the neolithic period took to grinding\nand polishing their stone tools. In breaking the flints, as Sir J.\nLubbock likewise remarks, sparks would have been emitted, and in\ngrinding them heat would have been evolved; thus the two usual methods\nof 'obtaining fire may have originated.' The nature of fire would have\nbeen known in many volcanic regions where lava occasionally flows\nthrough forests.\"\n\nIt becomes a difficult task to determine how far animals exhibit any\ntraces of such high faculties as _abstraction_, _general conception_,\n_self-consciousness_, _mental individuality_. There can be no doubt, if\nthe mental faculties of an animal can be improved, that the higher\ncomplex faculties such as abstraction and self-consciousness have\ndeveloped from a combination of the simpler ones; this seems to be well\nillustrated in the young child, as such faculties are developed by\nimperceptible degrees. These high faculties are very sparingly possessed\nby the savage; as Buchner[57] has remarked, how little can the\nhard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses very few\nabstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness\nor reflect on the nature of her own existence. If there exist a class of\npeople so inferior in their mental faculties as these, it is not\ndifficult for us to understand how the educated animal who possesses\nmemory, attention, association, and even some imagination and reason,\ncan become capable of abstraction, &c., in an inferior degree even to\nthe savage. It certainly cannot be doubted that an animal possesses\nmental individuality--as when a master returns to a dog which he has not\nseen for years, and the dog recognizes him at once.\n\nOne of the chief distinctions between man and animals is the faculty of\nlanguage. Let us look at this for a moment. \"The essential differences,\"\nsays Prof. Whitney, \"which separate man's means of communication in kind\nas well as degree from that of the other animals is that, while the\nlatter is instinctive, the former is in all its parts arbitrary and\nconventional. No man can become possessed of any language without\nlearning it; no animal (that we know of) has any expression which he\nlearns, which is not the direct gift of nature to him.\" Any child of\nparents living in a foreign country grows up to speak the foreign\nspeech, unless carefully guarded from doing so; or it speaks both this\nand the tongue of its parent with equal readiness. A child must learn to\nobserve and distinguish before speech is possible, and every child\nbegins to know things by their name before he begins to call them. \"If\nit were not for the added push,\" says Prof. Whitney, \"given by the\ndesire of communication, the great and wonderful power of the human\nsoul would never move in this particular direction; but when this leads\nthe way, all the rest follows.\" No philologist now supposes that any\nlanguage has been deliberately invented; it has been slowly and\nunconsciously developed by many steps.\n\nThere can be no question that language owes its origin to the imitation\nand modification of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals,\nand man's own instinctive cries, aided by signs and gestures; and this\nis the opinion of Max M\u00fcller. And Prof. Whitney remarks that \"spoken\nlanguage began, we may say, when a cry of pain, formally wrung out by\nreal suffering, and seen to be understood and sympathized with, was\nrepeated in imitation, no longer as a mere instinctive utterance, but\nfor the purpose of intimating to another.\" Darwin says that \"the early\nprogenitor of man probably first used his voice in producing true\nmusical cadences, that is, in singing, as do some gibbon-apes at the\npresent day. It is therefore probable that the imitation of musical\ncries by articulate sounds may have given rise to words expressive of\nvery complex emotions.\"\n\nThe nearest approach to language are the sounds uttered by birds. All\nthat sing exert their power instinctively, but the actual song, and even\nthe call notes, are learned from their parents or foster-parents. These\nsounds are no more innate than language is in man, as has been proved by\nDavies Barrington.[58] The first attempt to sing \"may be compared to the\nimperfect endeavor in a child to babble.\" Prof. Whitney says, if the\nlast transition forms of man \"could be restored, we should find the\ntransition forms toward our speech to be, not at all a minor provision\nof natural articulate signs, but an inferior system of conventional\nsigns, in tone, gesture, and grimace. As between these three natural\nmeans of expression, it is simply by a kind of process of natural\nselection and survival of the fittest that the voice has gained the\nupper hand, and come to be so much the most prominent that we give the\nname of language (tonguiness) to all expression.\" A single utterance or\ntwo at first had to do the duty of a whole clause; afterward man learned\nto piece together parts of speech, and thus arose sentences.\n\nAlthough no language, as has already been said, has been deliberately\ninvented, \"still each word may not be unfitly compared to an invention;\nit has its own place, mode, and circumstances of devisal, its\npreparation in the previous habits of speech, its influence in\ndetermining the after progress of speech development; but every language\nin the gross is an institution, on which scores or hundreds of\ngenerations and unnumbered thousands of individual workers have\nlabored.\"[59]\n\nThere is no question at all but that the mental powers in the earliest\nprogenitors of man must have been more highly developed than in the ape,\nbefore even the most imperfect form of speech could have come into use;\nbut the constant advancement of this power would have reacted on the\nmind to enable it to carry on longer trains of thought. \"A complex train\nof thought,\" says Darwin, \"can no more be carried on without the aid of\nwords, whether spoken or silent, than a long calculation without the use\nof figures in algebra. It appears also that even an ordinary train of\nthought almost requires or is greatly facilitated by some form of\nlanguage; for the dumb, deaf, and blind girl, Laura Bridgman, was\nobserved to use her fingers while dreaming.[60] Nevertheless a long\nsuccession of vivid ideas may pass through the mind, without the aid of\nany form of language, as we may infer from the movements of dogs during\ntheir dreams.\"\n\nThe struggle for existence is going on in every language; one after\nanother will be swept out of existence, and the languages best fitted\nfor the practical uses of the masses of people will alone survive. Max\nM\u00fcller has well remarked: \"A struggle for life is constantly going on\namongst the words and grammatical forms in each language. The better the\nshorter; the easier forms are constantly gaining the upper hand, and\nthey owe their success to their own inherent virtue.\"[61]\n\nIt must not be thought for a moment that that which distinguishes a man\nfrom the lower animals is the understanding of articulate sounds--for,\nas every one knows, dogs understand many words and sentences; and Darwin\nsays, at this stage they are at the same stage of development as\ninfants, between the ages of ten and twelve months, who understand many\nwords and sentences, but still cannot utter a single word. It is not the\nmere articulation which is our distinguishing character; for parrots and\nother birds possess the power. Nor is it the mere capacity of connecting\ndefinite sounds with definite ideas; for it is certain that some\nparrots, which have been taught to speak, connect unerringly words with\nthings, and persons with events.\" The lower animals, as has already been\nstated, differ from man solely in his almost infinitely larger power of\nassociating together the most diversified sounds and ideas; and this\nobviously depends on the high development of his mental powers.\n\nWe now come to the consideration of a very delicate subject--a subject\nwhich is certainly at best very unsatisfactory to handle, as far as\npopular sentiment is concerned; for, no matter how successfully it may\nbe handled, according to one class of thinkers, to another class of more\northodox thinkers it would be entirely at fault. The subject is, _Man's\nMoral Sense, Belief in God, Religion, Conscience, and Hope of\nImmortality_.\n\nIt has been stated by some writers that where \"faith commences science\nends.\" How erroneous is such a statement as this! for, as Krauth has\nsaid, \"The great body of scientific facts is actually the object of\nknowledge to a few, and is supposed to be a part of the knowledge of the\nmany, only because the many have faith in the statements of the few,\nthough they can neither verify them, nor even understand the processes\nby which they are reached.\"[62]\n\n\"We believe,\" says Lewes, \"that the sensation of violet is produced by\nthe striking of the ethereal waves against the retina more than seven\nhundred billions of times in a second. * * * These statements are\naccepted _on trust_ by us who know that there are thinkers for whom they\nare irresistible conclusions.\" It is evident that it is to faith that\nscience owes, to a very great extent, her progress and development; for\nit is impossible for man to prove by experimental demonstration all the\nfacts of science, and since a certain number of facts have got to be\naccepted before a new experiment can be attempted, he has to accept on\nfaith that such and such a statement is a fact, because such and such a\nscientist has claimed to have demonstrated it. \"We are not _responsible_\nfor the fact,\" says Krauth, \"that under the conditions of knowledge we\n_know_, or in defect of them do not know; we are responsible if, under\nthe conditions of a well-grounded faith, we disbelieve.\"[63]\n\nLet us look, then, at the belief in God. The question under\nconsideration at first will not be whether there exists a God, the\ncreator and ruler of the universe--for this will be afterward\nconsidered--but is there any evidence that man was aboriginally endowed\nwith the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God.\n\nSchweinfurth relates that the Niam-niam, that highly interesting dwarf\npeople of Central Africa, have no word for God, and therefore, it must\nbe supposed, no idea; and Moritz Wagner has given a whole selection of\nreports on the absence of religious consciousness in inferior nations.\nThe idea that conscience is a sort of permanent inspiration or dwelling\nof God in the soul, I think, on consideration, any reasonable man will\nnot assume. \"It is a purely human faculty,\" says Savage, \"like the\nfaculty for art or music; and it gets its authority, as they do by being\ntrue, and just in so far as it is true. Consciousness is our own\nknowledge of ourselves and of the relation between our own faculties and\npowers. Conscience is our recognition of the relations, as right or\nwrong, in which we stand to those about us, God and our fellows.\n_Con-scio_ is to know with, in relation.\n\nThere is such a thing, of course, as a _false conscience_ and a _true\nconscience_. All the false \"conscientiousness grows out of the fact that\nmen suppose they stand in certain relationships that do not really\nexist. Thus they imagined duties that are not duties at all.\" The\nvirtues which must be practised by rude men, so that they can hold\ntogether in tribes, are of course important. No tribe could hold\ntogether if robbery, murder, treachery, etc., were common; in other\nwords, there must be honor among thieves. \"A North-American Indian is\nwell pleased with himself, and is honored by others, when he scalps a\nman of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending\nperson, and dries it as a trophy. The murder of infants has prevailed on\nthe largest scale throughout the world, and has been met with no\nreproach; but infanticide, especially of females, has been thought to be\ngood for the tribe, or at least not injurious. Suicide during former\ntimes was not generally considered as a crime, but rather, from the\ncourage displayed, as an honorable act; and it is still practised by\nsome semi-civilized and savage nations without reproach, for it does not\nobviously concern others of the tribe. It has been recorded that an\nIndian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and\nstrangled as many travelers as did his father before him.\"[64]\n\nSee how weak the conscience of even more highly civilized men are in\ntheir dealings with the brute creation; how the sportsman delights in\nhunting-scenes, Spanish bull-fights, cock-fights, etc.; how indignant\nwas the sensitive Cowper, if any one should \"needlessly set foot upon a\nworm\"! The rights of the worm are as sacred in his degree as ours are,\nand a true conscience will recognize them. What, then, is a true\nconscience? Savage states in a few words, it is \"one that knows and is\nadjusted to the realities of life. When men know the truth about God,\nabout themselves--body and mind and spirit--about the real relations of\nequity in which they stand to their fellow-men in state and church and\nsociety, and when they appreciate these, and adjust their conscience to\nthem, then they will have a true conscience. An absolutely true\nconscience, of course, cannot exist so long as our knowledge of the\nreality of things is only partial.\"\n\nIt is evident, then, that the conscience of man depends on his education\nand environments, and therefore is the subject of improvement. It\nbecomes, then, the duty of every man to search for truth, for his\nconscience is not infallible, and by so doing he will bring it to accord\nwith the real facts of God. \"Throw away,\" says Savage, \"prejudice and\nconceit, seek to make your conscience like the magnetic needle. The\nneedle ever and naturally seeking the unchanging pole.\" As conscience,\nthen, is but a faculty capable of development, it is not so difficult to\nunderstand a race of people whose conscience was in just the first\nstages of development; and, finally, a race which did not possess this\nfaculty at all, as in the inferior nations which Wagner speaks of.\n\n\n[Illustration: FIG. I.--Butcher's Shop of the Anziques, Anno 1598.\n\n(From Man's Place in Nature, by _Huxley_.)]\n\n\nWhat kind of conscience and intelligence had the people near Cape Lopez,\ncalled the Anziques, which M. du Chaillu describes. They had incredible\nferocity; for they ate one another, sparing neither friends nor\nrelations. Their butcher-shops were filled with human flesh, instead of\nthat of oxen or sheep, for they ate the enemies they captured in battle.\nThey fattened, slayed, and devoured their slaves also, unless they\nthought they could get a good price for them; and moreover, for\nweariness of life or desire for glory (for they thought it a great thing\nand a sign of a generous soul to despise life), or for love of their\nrulers, offered themselves up for food. There were, indeed, many\ncannibals, as in the East Indies and Brazil and elsewhere, but none such\nas these, since the others only ate their enemies, but these their own\nblood relations.\n\nThere is therefore, combining the fact mentioned by Wagner with the fact\nthat some nations have no idea of one or more gods, not even a word to\nexpress it (proving that they have no idea), I say, there is therefore\nno evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with any such belief as\nthe existence of an Omnipotent God; and in this assertion almost all the\nlearned men concur. \"If, however,\" says Darwin, \"we include under the\nterm religion, the belief in unseen or spiritual agencies, the case is\nwholly different; for this belief seems to be universal with the less\ncivilized races. Nor is it difficult to understand how it arose.\"\n\nThe savage has a stronger belief in bad spirits than in good ones. \"The\nsame high mental faculties which first led man to believe in unseen\nspiritual agencies, then in fetishism, polytheism, and ultimately in\nmonotheism, would infallibly lead him, as long as his reasoning powers\nremained poorly developed, to very strange superstitions and customs.\nMany of these are terrible to think of: such as the sacrifice of human\nbeings to a blood-loving god, the trial of innocent persons by the\nordeal of poison, of fire, of witchcraft, etc.; yet it is well\noccasionally to reflect on these superstitions, for they show us what an\ninfinite debt of gratitude we owe to the improvement of our reason, to\nscience, and to our accumulated knowledge.\"[65] As Sir J. Lubbock has\nwell observed: \"It is not too much to say that the possible dread of\nunknown evil hangs like a thick cloud over savage life, and embitters\nevery pleasure. These miserable and indirect consequences of our highest\nfaculties may be compared with the incidental and occasional mistakes of\nthe instincts of the lower animals.\"\n\nThe belief, then, of the existence of an Omnipotent God came with the\ndevelopment of the mental faculties; and although there does exist such\na belief in the minds of men whose conscience is in a normal condition,\nstill there are temptations to unbelief, and these have led men to\natheism. I cannot think of an atheist unless I associate in my thoughts\nthe words:\n\n  \"The ruling passion, be it what it may--\n  The ruling passion conquers reason still.\"\n\nThe atheist has decided not to believe in the existence of a God, unless\nhe can see Him and understand Him; in other words, the finite would\ncomprehend the infinite. Following the logical method of reasoning of an\natheist, the simple fact of seeing God in no way ought to prove his\nexistence. For when you say you see a person, and that you have not the\nleast doubt about it, I answer, that what you are really conscious of is\nan affection of your retina. And if you urge that you can check your\nsight of the person by touching him, I would answer, that you are\nequally transgressing the limits of fact; for what you are really\nconscious of is, not that he is there, but that the nerves of your hand\nhave undergone a change. All you hear and see and touch and taste and\nsmell are mere variations of your own condition, beyond which, even to\nthe extent of a hair's-breadth, you cannot go. That anything answering\nto your impression exists outside of yourself is not a _fact_, but an\n_inference_, to which all validity would be denied by an idealist like\nBerkeley, or by a skeptic like Hume.[66]\n\nThomas Cooper[67] said:\n\n  \"I do not say--there is no God;\n  But this I say--I KNOW NOT.\"\n\n\nMr. Bradlaugh says: \"The atheist does not say, 'There is no God'; but he\nsays, I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the\nword 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation.\nI do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no\nconception, and the conception of which, by its affirmer, is so\nimperfect that he is unable to define it to me.\"\n\nAustin Holyoake[68] says: \"The only way of proving the fallacy of\natheism is by _proving_ the existence of a God.\"\n\nIf it is logical proof that is wanted, there is plenty. The following\narguments, although not all meeting my approbation, are still of\ninterest:\n\nThe _Ontological Argument_ has been presented in different forms. 1.\nAnselm,[69] Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109), states this argument\nthus: We have an idea of an infinitely perfect being. But real existence\nis an element of infinite perfection. Therefore an infinitely perfect\nbeing exists; otherwise the infinitely perfect, as we conceive it, would\nlack an essential element of perfection.\n\n2. Descartes[70] (1596-1650) states the argument thus: The idea of an\ninfinitely perfect being which we possess could not have originated in a\nfinite source, and therefore must have been communicated by an\ninfinitely perfect being.\n\n3. Dr. Samuel Clark[71] (1705) argues that time and space are infinite\nand necessarily existent, but they are not substances. Therefore there\nmust exist an eternal and infinite substance of which they are\nproperties.\n\n4. Cousin[72] maintained that the idea of the finite implies the idea of\nthe infinite as inevitably as the idea of the \"me\" implies that of the\n\"not me.\"\n\nThe _Cosmological Argument_ may be stated thus: \"Every new thing and\nevery change in a previously existing thing must have a cause sufficient\nand pre-existing. The universe consists of a series of changes.\nTherefore the universe must have a cause exterior and anterior to\nitself.\n\nThe _Teleological Argument_, or argument from design or final causes, is\nas follows: Design, or the adaptation of means to effect an end, implies\nthe exercise of intelligence and free choice. The universe is full of\ntraces of design. Therefore the \"First Cause\" must have been a personal\nspirit.\n\nThe _Moral Argument_ may be thus stated: \"In looking at the works of God\nthere is,\" says Rev. Dr. Hopkins, \"I suppose, evidence enough,\nespecially if interpreted by the moral consciousness, to prove to a\ncandid man the being of God.\" The educated man is a religious being. The\ninstinct of prayer and worship, the longing for and faith in divine love\nand help, are inseparable from human nature under normal conditions, as\nknown in history.\n\nIt is evident from the above that it is not for logical reasoning or\narguments that the atheist is led to say, \"that up to this moment the\nworld has remained without knowledge of a God.\"[73] It is from the folly\nof his heart; and, as Solomon says, that \"though you bray him and his\nfalse logic in the mortar of reason, among the wheat of facts, with the\npestle of argument, yet will not his folly depart from him.\"[74] I fully\nagree with Hobbes when he says, \"where there is no reason for our\nbelief, there is no reason we should believe,\" but I think the several\narguments given above, which could be greatly expanded, affords\nsufficient reason for a perfect belief in an Infinite God. For--\n\n  \"God is a being, and that you may see\n  In the fold of the flower, in the leaf of the tree,\n  In the storm-cloud of darkness, in the rainbow of life,\n  In the sunlight at noontide, in the darkness of night,\n  In the wave of the ocean, in the furrow of land,\n  In the mountain of granite, in the atom of sand;\n  Gaze where ye may from the sky to the sod--\n  Where can you gaze and not see a God.\"\n\nYes, the infinite God must include all. If he is not in the dust of our\nstreets, in the bricks of our house, in the beat of our hearts, then he\nis not infinite, but is finite, having boundaries. Yes, God's power it\nwas that set the nebulous mass into vibration, and caused the world to\nbe formed; it was His force which first shaped the atoms into molecules,\nand then into more complex chemical products, till finally \"organizable\nprotoplasm\" was reached, which, by evolution, climbed up to man. 'Tis\nGod we see in the family, in society, in the state, in all religions, up\nto the highest outflowings of Christianity. 'Tis Him we see in art,\nliterature, and science; and so proclaims Evolution. \"God is the\nuniversal causal law; God is the source of all force and all matter.\"\n\"For us,\" says Haeckel, \"all nature is animated, _i. e._, penetrated\nwith Divine spirit, with law, and with necessity.\" We know of no matter\nwithout this Divine spirit.\n\nThe \"ultimate repulsion, constituting the extension and impenetrability\nof the atoms of matter,\" says Dr. Samuel Brown, \"could be conceived of\nin no other way than as the persistent existence of the will of God\nhimself, in whom we live and move and have our being, and which, if but\nfor an instant withdrawn, the whole material universe and its forces in\nall their vastness, glory, and beauty, would collapse and sink in a\nmoment into their original nothingness.\"\n\nThe advancement of science, instead of depriving man of his God, only\ndeprives men of their earlier and ruder conceptions of Deity, only to\nimpart a larger and grander thought of Him. \"It is true, in the\neducational process some few minds have lost sight of Him altogether,\nbut these are the exceptional, and therefore notable instances; with the\ngreat body of men, the conception of God has steadily enlarged with the\nprogress of science.\"[75] If science can demonstrate that Evolution is\ntrue, then it is God's truth, and as such it is man's religious duty to\naccept it; if he rejects it, superstitiously or unreasonably, he not\nonly defrauds himself but insults the Author of truth.\n\nWhat, then, has science demonstrated? Science has demonstrated the UNITY\nOF THE FORCES: Light, heat, electricity, magnetism, motion, are all\ncorrelated to one another, and are all mutually convertible one into\nanother. Heat may be said to produce electricity--electricity to produce\nheat; magnetism to produce electricity--electricity, magnetism, and so\non for the rest.\n\nUNITY OF MATTER AND FORCE.--\"For if matter were not force, and\nimmediately known as force, it could not be known at all--could not be\nrationally inferred.\"\n\nUNITY OF THE LIFE SUBSTANCE IN ALL ORGANIC AND ANIMAL BODIES.--\"A unity\nof power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of substantial\ncomposition.\"\n\nUNITY OF ANIMATE AND INANIMATE NATURE IN MATTER, FORM, AND FORCE.\n\nUNITY OF THE LAWS OF DEVELOPMENT.--Hence we can proclaim the unity of\nall nature and of her laws of development.\n\nIn the beautiful words of Giordano Bruno: \"A spirit exists in all\nthings, and no body is so small but contains a part of the divine\nsubstance within itself, by which it is animated.\" Hence we arrive at\nthe sublime idea, since we can in no other way account for the ultimate\ncause of anything, that it is God's spirit which pervades and sustains\nall nature. By this admission we are not led to say: \"There is no God\nbut force;\" but rather, \"There is no force but God.\" God is infinite,\nand therefore includes nature; but is nature all? It is all that our\nfinite minds can discover, 'tis true; but can there not exist another\nnature or world unknown to us; and if so, since God is infinite, he will\ninclude that world also. Let us look to this and see what science can\nanswer.\n\nIt will be necessary for us to consider before proceeding, what is meant\nby the term soul; and this becomes a somewhat difficult task, as the\nterm has been variously applied to signify the principle of life in an\norganic body, or the first and most undeveloped stages of individualized\nspiritual being, or finally, all stages of spiritual individuality,\nincorporeal as well as corporeal.[76] The popular belief is, that the\nsoul is not material but substantial, a divine gift to the highest alone\nof God's creatures; but scientific men, such as Carl Vogt, Moleschott,\nB\u00fcchner, Schmidt, Haeckel, consider the phenomena of the soul to be\nfunctions of the brain and nerves. Schmidt says: \"The soul of the\nnew-born infant is, in its manifestations, in no way different from that\nof the young animal. These are the functions of the infantine nervous\nsystem, with this they grow and are developed together with speech.\"\n\nThe idea of the immortality of the soul was not aboriginal with mankind,\nas Sir J. Lubbock has shown that the barbarous races possess no clear\nbelief of this kind, and Rajah Brook, at a missionary meeting in\nLiverpool, told his hearers there that the Dyaks, a people with whom he\nwas connected, had no knowledge of God, of a soul, or of any future\nstate.\n\nDarwin remarks, that \"man may be excused for feeling some pride at\nhaving risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit\nof the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of\nhaving been aboriginally placed there, may give hope for a still higher\ndestiny in the distant future.\"\n\nThe belief in a future life amongst the civilized race of mankind is\nalmost universally prevalent. The proofs of immortality are various. The\ndesire that man has to live forever and his horror of annihilation is\none; the good suffer in this world and the wicked triumph--this would\nindicate the necessity of future retribution. The infinite\nperfectibility of the human mind never reaches its full capacity in this\nlife; the faculty of insight which sees in an individual all its past\nhistory at a glance is the immortal attribute and is continually on the\nincrease; and it is possible that Aristotle was right so far as he\nstated that the lower faculties of the soul, such as sensation,\nimagination, feeling, memory, etc., are perishable. No matter if this be\nso or not, it is certain that in the next life, where all is perfection,\nonly the fittest attributes will exist, the others would have perished.\nThe doctrine of the immortality of the soul has been defended by\nMarhemeke, Blasche, Weisse, Hinnichs, Fecham, J. H. Fichte, and others.\n\nLet us look for a moment at the visible universe and see if it is not\nreasonable, on a scientific basis, to admit of the existence of another\nuniverse, although it remains unseen to us. One can not help but be\nstruck with the fact that energy is being dissipated in this visible\nuniverse, that the visible universe is apparently very wasteful. Look at\nthe sun which pours her vast store of high-class energy into space, at\nthe rate of 185,000 miles per second. What will be the result of this?\nThe answer is simple: The inevitable destruction of the visible\nuniverse. Yes, just as the visible universe had its beginning it will\nhave its end. But there existed a power before the visible universe came\ninto existence, and which is acting in the visible universe as the\nultimate cause of all phenomena. \"For we are obliged,\" says Herbert\nSpencer in his First Principles, \"to regard every phenomenon as a\nmanifestation of some power by which we are acted upon; though\nomnipresence is unthinkable, yet, as experience discloses no bounds to\nthe diffusion of phenomena, we are unable to think of limits to the\npresence of this power, while the criticisms of science teaches us that\nthis power is incomprehensible.\" And so we should expect, for a finite\ncannot comprehend an infinite. It is for this and other reasons one is\nled to believe that the visible universe is only an infinitesimal part\nof \"that stupendous whole which is alone entitled to be called THE\nUNIVERSE.\"[77] As there existed an invisible universe before the visible\none came into existence, we can conclude that there still exists an\ninvisible universe now, and that this invisible universe will still\nexist when the present visible one has passed away. Let us see what\nlight our finite senses can throw on this. It is well known that all our\nsenses have only a certain narrow gauge within which they are able to\nbring us into sensible contact with the world about us. All outside this\nrange we are unable to reach. For example, we do not see all forms and\ncolors; we do not hear all sounds; we do not smell all odors; we cannot\nconscientiously touch all substances; we cannot taste all flavors. Vision\ndepends on the wave motion of light. The length of a wave of mean red\nlight is about 1/39000th of an inch, that of violet 1/57500th of an inch.\nBut the number of oscillations of ether in a second, necessary to produce\nthe sensation of red, are 477,000,000,000,000, all of which enter the eye\nin one second. For the sensation of violet, the eye must receive\n699,000,000,000,000 oscillations in one second, as light travels 185,000\nmiles in one second. But when waves of light having all possible lengths\nact on the eye simultaneously, the sensation of white is produced. So, as\nhas been previously stated, without eyes the world would be wrapped in\ndarkness, there being no light and color outside of one's eye. So we see\nour sense of sight has its limits, and we know how finite these are. That\nthere are vibrations of the ether on each side of our limits of vision\ncannot be doubted; and if our eyes were acute enough to receive them, we\ncould have the sensation of some color, which must under present\nconditions remain forever blank. The owl and bat can see when we cannot;\ntheir eyes can receive oscillations of ether, which pass by without\naffecting us. So with sound, which \"is a sensation produced when\nvibrations of a certain character are excited in the auditory apparatus of\nthe ear.\"[78] The longest wave which can give an impression has a length\nof about 66 ft., which is equal to 16-1/2 vibrations per second; when the\nwave is reduced to three or four tenths of an inch, equal to from 38,000\nto 40,000 vibrations per second, sound becomes again inaudible. The piano,\nfor instance, only runs between 27-1/2 vibrations in a second up to 3,520.\nSound travels about 1,093 feet per second, and the human voice can be\nheard 460 feet away, whilst a rifle can be heard 16,000 feet (3.02 miles),\nand very strong cannonading 575,840 feet, or 90 miles. That there are\nvibrations above and below 16-1/2 and 40,000, there is no room to doubt,\nas there exist ears which can hear them, such as the hare; but to us they\nare as though they did not exist.\n\nOf all our senses, the sense of smell far surpasses that of the other\nsense. Valentine has calculated that we are able to perceive about the\nthree one-hundred-millionth of a grain of musk. The minute particle\nwhich we perceive by smell, no chemical reaction can detect, and even\nspectrum analysis, which can recognize fifteen-millionths of a grain, is\nfar surpassed. But this sense in man is far surpassed by the hound.\n\nOur sense of taste is also limited, and as has been already stated,\ncannot distinguish all flavors. We can recognize by taste one part of\nsulphuric acid in 1000 parts of water; one drop of this on the tongue\nwould contain 1/2000 of a grain (3/400 of a grain) of sulphuric acid.\nThe length of time needed for reaction in sensation has been determined\nby Vintschgau and Hougschmied, and in a person whose sense of taste was\nhighly developed, the reaction time was, for common salt, 0.159 second;\nfor sugar, 0.1639 second; for acid, 0.1676 second; and for quinine,\n0.2351 second.\n\nReviewing, then, the above, it is evident there are eyes which can see\nwhat we cannot, there are ears which can hear what we cannot, and there\nare animals who can smell and touch what we cannot. \"For anything we\nknow to the contrary, then,\" says Savage, \"a refined and spiritualized\norder of existences may be the inhabitants of another and unseen world\nall about us.\" As Milton has said:\n\n  \"Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth\n  Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep.\"\n\nIf there is a life very much different from and very much higher than\nour present one, it is not strange we are ignorant of it. It is\nimpossible to make a person understand anything which is entirely unlike\nall that has ever been seen or heard, for every idea in the world that\nman has came to him by nature. Man[79] cannot conceive of anything the\nhint of which has not been received from his surroundings. He can\nimagine an animal with the hoof of a bison, with the pouch of a\nkangaroo, with the wings of an eagle, with the beak of a bird, and with\nthe tail of a lion; and yet every point of this monster he borrowed from\nnature. Everything he can think of, everything he can dream of, is\nborrowed from his surroundings--everything. \"So, if an angel should come\nand tell of another life, it would mean nothing to us, unless we could\ntranslate it into terms of our own experience. We could not understand a\n'light that never was on land or sea.' Our ignorance is not even then a\nprobability against our belief.\"[80]\n\nAs has already been stated, the visible universe must have its doom,\nmust end as it began, by consisting of a single mass of matter; but is\nthere not a more primitive state of matter than the matter such as we\nknow it? Yes; and the so-called ether is that matter. It is unlike any\nof the forms of matter which we can weigh and measure. It is in some\nrespects like unto a fluid, and in some respects like unto a solid. It\nis both hard and elastic to an almost inconceivable degree. \"It fills\nall material bodies like a sea in which the atoms of the material bodies\nare as islands, and it occupies the whole of what we call empty space.\nIt is so sensitive that a disturbance in any part of it causes a 'tremor\nwhich is felt on the surface of countless worlds.' It exerts frictions;\nand although the friction is infinitely small, yet as it has an almost\ninfinite time to work in, it will diminish the momentum of the planets,\nand diminish their ability to maintain their distance from the sun, the\nconsequence of which will be the planets will fall into the sun, and the\nsolar system will end where it begun.\"[81]\n\nAccording to Sir William Thompson, the ultimate atoms of matter are\nvortex rings, which Professor Clifford describes as being more closely\npacked together (finer grained) in ether than in matter. And he says,\n\"whatever may turn out to be the ultimate nature of the ether and of\nmolecules, we know that to some extent at least they obey the same\ndynamic laws, and that they act on one another in accordance with these\nlaws. Until therefore it is absolutely disproved, it must remain the\nsimplest and most probable assumption that they are finally made of the\nsame stuff, that the material molecule is in some kind of knot or\ncoagulation of ether.\"[82]\n\nThe molecule of matter such as we know, then, may have been, and very\nprobably was, produced by evolution from the atoms or vortex rings of\nether, according to the theory advanced by the authors of the work\ncalled the \"Unseen Universe,\" which I have referred to. The world of\nether is to be regarded in some sort the obverse complement of the world\nof sensible matter, so that whatever energy is dissipated in the one is\nby the same act accumulated in the other; or, as Fiske describes it, \"it\nis like the negative plate in photography, where light answers to shadow\nand shadow to light.\" Every act of consciousness is accompanied by\nmolecular displacements in the brain, and these of course are responded\nto by movements in the ethereal world. Views of this kind were long ago\nentertained by Babbage, and they have since recommended themselves to\nother men of science, and amongst others to Jevon, who says: \"Mr.\nBabbage has pointed out that if we had power to follow and detect the\nmanifest effects of any disturbance, each particle of existing matter\nmust be a register of all that has happened. * * * The air itself is one\nvast library on whose pages are forever written all that man has ever\nsaid or whispered. There in their mutable but unerring characters,\nmixed with, the earliest as well as the latest sighs of mortality, stand\nforever recorded vows unredeemed, promises unfulfilled, perpetuating in\nthe united movements of each particle the testimony of man's changeful\nwill.\"[83]\n\nSo thought affects the substance of the present visible universe; it\nproduces a material organ of memory. \"But the motions which accompany\nthought,\" say the authors,[84] \"will also affect the invisible order of\nthings,\" and thus it follows that \"thought conceived to affect the\nmatter of another universe, simultaneously with this, may explain a\nfuture state.\"[85]\n\nDeath, then, is for the individual but a transfer from one physical\nstate of existence to another, according to the \"authors'\"[86] idea; and\nso, on the largest scale, the death or final loss of energy by the whole\nvisible universe has its counterpart in the acquirement of a maximum of\nlife, the correlative unseen world. According to this theory, therefore,\nas the psychical or spiritual phenomena of the visible world only begins\nto be manifested with some complex aggregate of material phenomena,\ntherefore it is necessary for the continuance of mind in a future state\nto have some sort of material vehicle also, which the ether is supposed\nto supply. \"The essential weakness of such a theory as this,\" says\nFiske, \"lies in the fact that it is thoroughly materialistic in\ncharacter. We have reason for thinking it probable that ether and\nordinary matter are alike composed of vortex rings in a\nquasi-frictionless fluid; but whatever be the fate of this subtle\nhypothesis, we may be sure that no theory will ever be entertained in\nwhich analysis of ether shall require different symbols from that of\nordinary matter. In our authors' theory, therefore, the putting on of\nimmortality is in nowise the passage from a material to a spiritual\nstate. It is the passage of one kind of materially conditioned state to\nanother.\" This theory, dealing with matter, should receive support by\nactual experience, as matter is a subject of investigation. To accept\nit, therefore, as being possible without any positive evidence for its\nsupport, it remains but a weak speculation, no matter how ingenious it\nmay seem.\n\nTo support an after life, which is not materially conditioned, I agree\nwith Mr. Fiske, that although it will be unsupported by any item of\nexperience whatever, it may nevertheless be an impregnable assertion.\n\nIf all were to agree, what we call matter is really force, as it\ncertainly is, for if matter were not force it would be unthinkable,\nbeing force it becomes thinkable; this point I have touched on before,\nbut it may be well to elaborate on it a little just here. The great\nlesson that Berkeley taught mankind was that what we call material\nphenomena are really the products of consciousness co-operating with\nsome unknown power (not material) existing beyond consciousness. \"We do\nvery well to speak of matter,\" says Fiske, \"in common parlance, but all\nthat the word really means is a group of qualities which have no\nexistence apart from our minds.\" The ablest modern thinkers, then,\nbelieve that the only real things that exist are the mind and God, and\nthat the universe is only the infinitely varied manifestation of God in\nthe human conscience. It is evident, then, that _matter_, the only thing\nthe materialist concedes real existence, is simply an orderly\nphantasmagoria; and God and soul, which materialists regard as mere\nfictions of the imagination, are the only conceptions that answer to\nreal existence.[87]\n\nFor instance, let us see what it is we know about a table. You say you\ncan see it; I can respond that all you are conscious of is that the\nnerves of your eye have undergone a change. You say, I can check my\nsight of it by touching it; to this I reply, all that you are really\nconscious of is a sensation, and that something outside of you has\nproduced it. But that all that is outside of me is anything more than\nthe manifestation to me of a power or of God, is an inference and cannot\nbe proven. To constant manifestations of this power, always assuming the\nsame form and characters which can be studied, different names have been\ngiven; but that the dust of the street or beat of our heart is anything\nelse but that peculiar manifestation of the infinite God, cannot be\ncontradicted.\n\nMr. Savage says, \"The movement of electricity along a telegraph-line is\naccompanied by certain molecular changes in the wire itself; but the\nwire is not electricity, neither does it produce it. Thus modern science\nhas found it utterly impossible to explain mind either as a part or a\nproduct of matter. It is perfectly reasonable, then, for any man to\nbelieve in a purely intellectual and spiritual existence, apart from any\nmaterial form or substance.\"\n\nTo comprehend the immortal life is an impossibility; it transcends any\nearthly experience of man. The caterpillar probably knows nothing about\nany life higher than that of his toilsome crawling on the ground; but\nthat is no proof against the fact that we know he is to become a\nbutterfly. The boy knows nothing about manhood, and cannot know. Though\nhe sees men and their labors all about him, he has and can have no\nconception whatever of what it means to be a man; it transcends all\nexperience.[88] \"The existence,\" says Fiske, \"of a single soul, or\ncongeries of psychical phenomena, unaccompanied by a material body,\nwould be evidence sufficient to demonstrate this hypothesis. But in the\nnature of things, even were there a million such souls round about us,\nwe could not become aware of the existence of one of them; for we have\nno organ or faculty for the perception of soul apart from the material\nstructure and activities in which it has been manifested throughout the\nwhole course of our experience. Even our own self-consciousness involves\nthe consciousness of ourselves as partly material bodies. These\nconsiderations show that our hypothesis is very different from the\nordinary hypothesis with which science deals. _The entire absence of\ntestimony does not raise a negative presumption, except in cases where\ntestimony is accessible._\"\n\nMy object has not been to prove the purely spiritual theory of a future\nlife, but to show that it is a theory that intelligent people can\nentertain as a foundation for their belief \"in the hope of immortality.\"\nBut that the spiritual life instead of the material life is the state in\nwhich we can hope for immortality, I think there can be no question; and\nsuch was the opinion of Paul[89] when he wrote: \"Now this I say,\nbrethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,\nneither does corruption inherit incorruption.... So when this\ncorruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have\nput on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is\nwritten, 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'\n\n  O death, where is thy sting?\n  O grave, where is thy victory?\"\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n[1] The Law of Disease, in College Courant, Vol. XIV.\n\n[2] Winchell. Evolution, p. 113.\n\n[3] Comparative Zoology, p. 43. 1876.\n\n[4] Huxley. Physical Basis of Life.\n\n[5] Johnson, Ency.\n\n[6] Comparative Anatomy--Orton, p. 32.\n\n[7] Analytical Anatomy and Phys.--Cutter, p. 16.\n\n[8] Biography of a Plant.\n\n[9] See Huxley--Invertebrate Animals, Anatomy of.\n\n[10] Phys. Basis of Life.\n\n[11] Beginnings of Life, p. 104, Vol. I.\n\n[12] Monthly Micros. Jour., May 1, '69, p. 294.\n\n[13] Chem. and Phys. Balance of Organic Nature, 1848, p. 48 (trans.).\n\n[14] Inaugural Address, Aug. 19, 1874.\n\n[15] Haeckel--Hist. of Creation.\n\n[16] See Haeckel--Evol. of Man.\n\n[17] Evolution of Man, Vol. II, p. 445.\n\n[18] Johnson's Cyclopedia, Article \"Evolution.\"\n\n[19] Sumner, in Johnson's Cyc.\n\n[20] Christian Union, Vol. XIII, No. 17, p. 322.\n\n[21] Gen. i. 1.\n\n[22] St. John i. 1.\n\n[23] St. John i. 3.\n\n[24] Hist. of Creation, p. 8.\n\n[25] _Ibid._, p. 324.\n\n[26] Heb. xi. 3. Revised English Ed.\n\n[27] _Loc. cit._, Vol. I, p. 323.\n\n[28] _Loc. cit._, Vol. I, p. 324.\n\n[29] Indications of the Creator.\n\n[30] Evolution and Progress, p. 26, Rev. Wm. I. Gill.\n\n[31] Nat\u00fcrl. Sch\u00f6pfungsgesch., pp. 643-5.\n\n[32] Paget, Lectures on Surgical Pathology, 1853, Vol. I, p. 71.\n\n[33] Ueber die Richtung der Haare am menschlichen K\u00f6rper.\n\n[34] Pop. Sci. Monthly, June, 1879, p. 250.\n\n[35] See Sci. Am., May 18, 1878.\n\n[36] Source of Muscular Power, Proc. Roy. Inst., June 8, 1866. Am. I.\nSci., II, xlii, 393, Nov. 1866.\n\n[37] Comparative Zoology, p. 45.\n\n[38] Correlation of the Vital and Physical Forces, p. 54.\n\n[39] On the time required for the transmission of volition and sensation\nthrough the nerves, Proc. Roy. Inst.\n\n[40] Comparative Zoology, p. 165.\n\n[41] Sci. Amer., Nov. 13, 1876, p. 328.\n\n[42] Marshall, Outline of Physiology. Amer. Ed., 1868, p. 227.\n\n[43] Macmillon's Magazine, Pop. Sci. Monthly, April, 1876.\n\n[44] \"Principles of Psychology,\" 1869, No. 20, p. 24.\n\n[45] J. S. Lombard, N. Y. Med. Jour., Vol. V, 198, June, 1867.\n\n[46] _Loc. cit._, p. 23.\n\n[47] The apparatus employed is illustrated and fully described in\nBrown-Sequard's Archives de Phys., Vol. I, 498, June, 1868. By it the\n1-4000th of a degree Centigrade may be indicated.\n\n[48] L. H. Wood, \"On the influence of mental activity on the excretion\nof phosphoric acid by the kidneys.\" Proc. Conn. Med. Soc., Nov., 1869,\np. 197.\n\n[49] _Loc. cit._, p. 24.\n\n[50] Address of Dr. F. A. P. Barnard, as retiring president, before the\nAm. Ass. for Adv. of Sci., Chicago meeting, Aug. 1868. \"Thought cannot\nbe a physical force, because thought admits of no measure.\"\n\n[51] Derivation hypothesis of life and species, forming fortieth chapter\nof his Anatomy of Vertebrates, republished in Am. Jour. Sci., II, xlvii,\n33, Jan. 1869.\n\n[52] Prehistoric Times, p. 354, by Lubbock.\n\n[53] Madness in Animals, Jour. Mental Sci., July, 1871. Dr. W. L.\nLindsay.\n\n[54] Facult\u00e9s Mentales des Animaux, 1872, Tom. XI, p. 181.\n\n[55] Primeval Man, 1869, pp. 145-147.\n\n[56] Prehistoric Times, 1865, p. 473.\n\n[57] \"Conferences ser les Th\u00e9orie Darwinienne,\" 1869, p. 132.\n\n[58] Philosoph. Trans., 1773, p. 262.\n\n[59] Prof. Whitney, p. 309.\n\n[60] Phys. and Pathol. of Mind. Dr. Maudsley. 3d ed., 1868, p. 199.\n\n[61] Nature, January 6, 1870, p. 257.\n\n[62] Problems i. 21.\n\n[63] Johnson's Cyc. Article \"Faith.\" C. P. Krauth.\n\n[64] Darwin's Descent of Man, p. 117.\n\n[65] See Descent of Man, p. 96.\n\n[66] See Tyndall's Belfast Address.\n\n[67] Purgatory of Suicides.\n\n[68] Thoughts on Atheism, p. 4.\n\n[69] Monologium and Proslogium.\n\n[70] Meditations de Primaphilosophia Prop. 2, p. 89.\n\n[71] Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God.\n\n[72] Elements of Psychology.\n\n[73] Thoughts on Atheism, by Holyoake, p. 4.\n\n[74] Proverbs xvii. 22.\n\n[75] Henry Ward Beecher.\n\n[76] See W. T. Harris. Johnson's Encyc. \"Soul.\"\n\n[77] Unseen Universe.\n\n[78] Rood. \"Sound,\" Johnson's Encyc.\n\n[79] See R. G. Ingersoll's Lecture on Hell.\n\n[80] Savage.\n\n[81] \"The Unseen World.\" John Fiske, p. 21.\n\n[82] Fortnightly Review, June 1875, p. 784.\n\n[83] Ninth Bridgewater Treatise.\n\n[84] Of the Unseen Universe.\n\n[85] Anagram. Nature, Oct. 15, 1874.\n\n[86] Of the Unseen Universe.\n\n[87] Fiske. Unseen World, p. 52.\n\n[88] Savage. Relig. of Evol., p. 246.\n\n[89] 1 Corinthians, xv., verses 50-54 (Part of). _Revised English Ed._,\n1877.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _underscore_.\n\nPassages in bold are indicated by =bold=.\n\nNumbers enclosed in {brackets} are subscripted in the original text.\n\nAdditional spacing after some of the quotes is intentional to indicate\nboth the end of a quotation and the beginning of a new paragraph as\npresented in the original text.\n\nImages have been moved from the middle of a paragraph to the closest\nparagraph break.\n\nThe following misprints have been addressed:\n  \"H\u00e6ckel\" standardized to \"Haeckel\" (page 57)\n  missing \"the\" added (page 91)\n  \"paleontology\" standardized to \"pal\u00e6ontology\" (page 108)\n  \"cerebelbellum\" corrected to \"cerebellum\" (page 113)\n\nSome quotation marks in the original are not paired. Obvious errors have\nbeen silently closed, while those requiring interpretation have been\nleft open.\n\nOther than the corrections listed above, printer's inconsistencies in\nspelling, punctuation, hyphenation, and ligature usage have been retained.","title":"Was Man Created?","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":31038}