{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_9307/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_9307","id":"gutenberg_9307","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9307","summary":null,"tags":["Biology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology","Creation","Religion and science"],"text":"Produced by Distributed Proofreaders\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLife: Its True Genesis\n\nBy R. W. Wright\n\n\n\n\n[Masoretic Hebrew.]--\u05d0\u05b2\u05c1\u05e9\u05b6\u05bd\u05e8 \u05d6\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05c4\u05be\u05d1\u05b4\u05dc \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u0591\u05e8\u05b6\u05e2\u05c3.--\n\n\u039f\u1f57 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2. [Septuagint.]\n\n\"Whose general principle of life, each in itself after its own kind, is\nupon the earth.\" [Correct Translation.]\n\nSecond Edition\n\n1884\n\n\n\nRESPECTFULLY DEDICATED\nTO\nARTHUR E. HOTCHKISS, ESQ.\nOF CHESHIRE, CONN.\n\n\n\n\nContents.\n\n\n\nPrefatory\n\nChapter I.    Introductory.\nChapter II.   Life--Its True Genesis.\nChapter III.  Alternations of Forest Growths.\nChapter IV.   The Distribution and Vitality of Seeds.\nChapter V.    Plant Migration and Interglacial Periods.\nChapter VI.   Distribution and Permanence of Species.\nChapter VII.  What Is Life? Its Various Theories.\nChapter VIII. Materialistic Theories of Life Refuted.\nChapter IX.   Force-Correlation, Differentiation and Other Life Theories.\nChapter X.    Darwinism Considered from a Vitalistic Stand-point.\n\n\n\n\nPreface to Second Edition.\n\n\n\nHere is the law of life, as laid down by the eagle-eyed prophet Isaiah, in\nthat remarkable chapter commencing, \"Ho, every one that\nthirsteth\"--whether it be after knowledge, or any other earthly or\nspiritual good--come unto me and I will give you that which you seek. This\nis the spirit of the text, and these are the words at the commencement of\nthe tenth verse:\n\n\"As the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not\nthither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it (_the earth_) bring forth\nand bud (_not first bud, bear seed, and then bring forth_), that it (_the\nearth_) may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater (_man being the\nonly sower of seed and eater of bread_): so shall my Word be (_the Word of\nLife_) that goeth forth out of my mouth (_the mouth of the Lord_); it\nshall not return unto me void (_i.e., lifeless_), but it shall accomplish\nthat which I (_the Lord Jehovah_) please, and it (_the living Word_) shall\nprosper in the thing whereto I sent it.\"\n\nThis formula of life is as true now as it was over two thousand six\nhundred years ago, when it was penned by the divinely inspired prophet,\nand it is as true now as it was then, that \"Instead of the thorn shall\ncome up the fir tree, and instead of the briar shall come up the myrtle\ntree; and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that\nshall not be cut off.\" That is, as the rains descend and the floods come\nand change the face of the earth, a law, equivalent to the divine command,\n\"Let the earth bring forth,\" is forever operative, changing the face of\nnature and causing it to give expression to new forms of life as the\nconditions thereof are changed, and these forms are spoken into existence\nby the divine fiat.\n\nIn all the alternations of forest growths that are taking place to-day, on\nthis continent or elsewhere, this one vital law is traceable everywhere.\nIn the course of the next year, it will be as palpable in the Island of\nJava, recently desolated by the most disastrous earthquake recorded in\nhistory, as in any other portion of the earth, however free from such\nvolcanic action. On the very spot where mountain ranges disappeared in a\nflaming sea of fire, and other ranges were thrown up in parallel lines but\non different bases, and where it was evident that every seed, plant, tree,\nand thing of life perished in one common vortex of ruin, animal as well as\nvegetable life will make its appearance in obedience to this law, as soon\nas the rains shall again descend, cool the basaltic and other rocks, and\nthe life-giving power referred to by Isaiah once more become operative.\nThere is no more doubt of this in the mind of the learned naturalist, than\nin that of the most devout believer of the Bible, from which this most\nremarkable formula is taken.\n\nWe have no disposition to arraign the American and European \"Agnostics,\"\nas they are pleased to call themselves, for using the term \"Nature\"\ninstead of God, in their philosophical writings.\n\nAs long as they are evidently earnest seekers after _Truth_ as it is to be\nfound in nature--the work of God--they are most welcome into the temple of\nscience, and their theories deserve our thoughtful consideration. It is\nonly when they become dogmatic, and assert propositions that have no\nfoundation in truth, as we sincerely believe, that we propose to break a\nlance at their expense, and lay bare their fallacies. We claim nothing\nmore for ourself, as a scientific writer, than we are willing and ready to\naccord to them. Indeed, we would champion their right to be heard sooner\nthan we would our own, on the principle that it is our duty to be just to\nothers before we are generous to ourselves, or those of our own following.\nBut our Agnostic friends should remember that when they charge us with\nbeing \"dogmatic in science,\" the charge should be made good from a\nscientific stand-point, and not merely by the bandying of words.\n\nWhen they tell us, for instance, that a toad has hibernated for a million\nyears in any one of the stratified rocks near the surface of the ground,\nwe interpose the objection that none of these batrachian forms can exist\nfor a period of more than twelve months without air and food. And yet they\nhave been blasted out of cavities in the surface rocks of the earth, where\nthey have apparently lain for the period named by our scientific friends\nreferred to. The fault is not ours, but theirs, that they are in error.\nHad they determined to study the subject of life, as we have done, from\nthe Bible as well as from nature, they would have commenced at these\ntoad-producing rocks, and worked their way upward to the source of all\nlife, and not downward to the vanishing point--that where animal life\nceases in the azoic rocks. The batrachians are low down in the scale of\nnature, but they have a determinate period of existence, as do all other\nforms of life. Try your experiments with them; see how long they will live\nwithout light, air, and food. This you can do as well as ourself. Conform\nto all the conditions required--the absolute exclusion of light, air, and\nfood--and you will find that the toughest specimen experimented with is a\ndead batrachian inside of one year.\n\nThis experimental test should settle the question of lengthened vitality\nbetween us. There is no miracle about this matter at all, and science\nfinds no stumbling-block in the way of a complete explication of this\nriddle, if, in the light of nature, there be any such riddle. We claim\nthere is not, when we interpret nature in the light of nature's God. Let\nthe earth, or rather its silicious and other decaying rocks, bring forth\nthese batrachian forms. The command is imperative and not dependent upon\nany \"seed\" previously scattered or sown in the earth itself.\n\nThe father of the writer was Superintendent of the Green Mountain Turnpike\nCompany, extending from Bellows Falls to Rutland, Vt., from 1812 to 1832,\nand worked every rod of that road many times over. From our earliest\nboyhood we accompanied him on these working trips, attended by a large\nforce of laboring men, and our attention was early called to the\ncharacteristics of these toad-producing rocks. The rotting slates, shales,\nsandstones, shists, and rocks of various kinds, were often ploughed up by\nthe road-sides, and the _d\u00e9bris_ scraped into the centre of the road-beds;\nthe heaviest ploughs of that day being used to cut through these wayside\nrocks, and often requiring as many as six or eight yoke of oxen to break\nthe necessary furrow. In many of these decaying slates, shists, sandstones\netc., hundreds of young toads, many of them not more than half an inch in\nlength, were turned out at different seasons of the year, showing that\nthey were produced independently of any parent batrachian, there being no\ntrace of a mother toad in connection with them.\n\nThe parent toads bury themselves in the gardens and ploughed fields in the\nearly autumn, and if they survive the severity of the winter months, may\npropagate their kind the second year, and probably for several years. But\nthey require remarkably favorable conditions to continue their life for\nany considerable number of years in open-field propagation, while under no\ncircumstances whatever can they make their way into these decaying rocks\nin order to propagate their species. The reason why such fresh specimens\nappear under these circumstances, and in the cavities of the rocks named,\nis conclusively that indicated by the prophet Isaiah, in the text quoted\nby us; and when Professor Agassiz was forced to admit that trout must have\nmade their appearance in the fresh-water streams emptying into Lake\nSuperior, instead of originating elsewhere, it is to be regretted, for the\nsake of science, that he did not boldly enunciate the formula of life as\ntaught by the eagle-eyed prophet of the Bible, and not as proclaimed by\nthe owl-eyed professors of the London University College.\n\nWhat is true of the trout in these Lake Superior streams, is true of them\nalmost everywhere, even right in the town of Cheshire, Conn., where we are\ninditing this preface, the 10th day of October, 1883. We recently visited\nthe Rev. David D. Bishop, in the northeastern portion of this township,\nwhere that cultured gentleman was constructing an artificial trout-pond.\nIt was at a season of the greatest drought known for years in that portion\nof the town.\n\nThe point selected for this trout-pond was at the farthest eastern source\nof what is known as \"Honey Pot\" brook in Cheshire, a famous one for trout\nin former years. Mr. Bishop proposed to stock his pond with the best spawn\nhe could procure. We remarked to him that there was no need of that\nexpense, as no stream ever produced better trout than the \"Honey Pot\"; and\non closely examining one of the six or eight cold springs developed in his\nenclosure, to his surprise, not ours, we discovered several small trout,\nnot more than six weeks old, as lively as they could well be under the\nblasting operations then going on there; while his children were fishing\nout from the rocks any number of young frogs (of the common _Rana_\nfamily), abounding wherever rocks and water make their appearance in\nsimilar localities. This incident was all the more remarkable for the\nreason that this small stream, or rather source of one, had been\napparently dry for months, as had been many of the best wells in the town.\n\nOur well, in the western part of the town, had been dug some six feet\ninto the solid rock and an inexhaustible supply of the coldest water\nsecured. We invited our neighbors, those living on both sides of us, as\nwell as at some distance from us, to come and draw all the water they\nwanted, remarking that they might now and then draw up a small frog,\noriginating therein, but that, by fishing him out of the pail, he would\nmake his way to the neighboring streams not dry, and would flourish well\nenough as one of the _Rana_ family. It was only to our more intelligent\nneighbors (such as Mr. Bishop) who had read our work on \"Life,\" that we\nstopped to explain this phenomenal fact. And so of all life, wherever it\nappears, whether vegetable or animal. Our experiments with mosquitoes are\nequally conclusive. Three years ago we took two barrels of rain-water\nfrom our cistern, tightly covered; one barrel we left open to the warm\nsun and air, and the other we covered with the finest mosquito netting.\nThe barrel left open was soon thronged with mosquitoes, constructing\ntheir little rafts of eggs and paving their way for the swarms of young\nwigglers that in the course of a week or two made their appearance in the\nopen barrel in immense numbers. The process by which these wigglers hatch\nout into mosquitoes is an interesting one, and will bear the closest\nstudy, as well as scientifically pay for watching the operation. At the\nproper time they come to the surface of the water, undergo a palpable\nmodification in their structure, and beautifully burgeon forth into the\ntormenting little insects that they are during the summer and autumn\nmonths in our Northern climate. The object of the covered barrel was to\nascertain whether we could reach the conditions favorable for the\ndevelopment of this little pest of the _Culex_ family, independently of\nthe eggs of the insect itself. This required some patience and not a\nlittle care. We knew that an egg dropped through the interstices of the\nnetting would sink to the bottom of the water and fail to germinate, as\nevery scientist understanding the process well knows. It must be floated\non the water at first, or until it reaches the point of development into\na wiggler. The first step in the process of its life is as cunningly\ndevised as the second, and the second as the third, until the\nfull-fledged mosquito is reached.\n\nAll precautions must be taken against any mistake or error in the\nexperiment named. But we persevered and found nature responsive to our\ndemands. Wigglers after awhile made their appearance sparsely in the\ncovered barrel, but the mosquitoes developed from them proved innocuous of\nharm, as we kept the barrel covered, and they were soon drowned in the\nwater, not having sufficient area of flight to answer the conditions of\ntheir life. We might instance some remarkable discoveries in the vegetable\nworld, showing conclusively that plants and trees come without seed, and\nwe feel the more pride in this discovery because we have been assured by\nProf. Othniel C. Marsh, of Yale College, a gentleman highly distinguished\nin his specialties, that if we would show that an oak tree came without an\nacorn, he would abandon Evolution and accept the exposition given by us of\nthe Bible genesis; but we have no special ambition to make so eminent a\nconvert from Herbert Spencer's ranks. He is a much younger man than\nourself, but the great English Evolutionist or Involutionist, whichever he\nmay ultimately decide to call himself, is about the writer's own age, and,\nfor special reasons, he would prefer to win him to the vital side of this\nquestion, that he may act with Professor Beale in the great controversy\nnow waging in England on this subject, and we will assure both Prof.\nMarsh, and his friend, Herbert Spencer, that if either of them will show\nthat an acorn comes without an oak tree, we will abandon any position we\nhave taken on this subject, and accept theirs, however absurdly (to our\nmind) it may have been taken in the past. We know that \"tall oaks from\nlittle acorns grow;\" but that is when man becomes the sower of seed, and\nknows the origin of each specific tree that is brought forth. When we talk\nabout the squirrel, or the birds becoming the \"sowers of seeds,\"\nespecially the acorns, we are talking at random, and without any certain\nknowledge. This we say with all due deference and respect to our learned\nAgnostic friends, and wish they would treat their vitalistic brothers with\nthe same becoming courtesy.\n\nIn a work which we have now in preparation for the press, to be entitled\n\"Biodynamics; or, The Laws of Life,\" we shall give this \"seed question\" a\nmore exhaustive inquiry than we have yet done.\n\nOur proofs in regard to one form of life are equally applicable to any\nother plant, insect, or animal, and there is no greater or less mystery in\nthe life of a blade of grass than in the cedar of Lebanon figuring so\nconspicuously in the historic page.\n\nWhen the Nile overflowed its banks in ancient times, and caused the young\nfrogs to swarm up as a pest upon the Egyptians, the same law of life was\noperative in that land, as when warm thunder-showers pelt the earth with\nus in the summer season, causing hundreds and thousands of these\nbatrachians to come out of the gritty waysides, and swarm along our\nhighways and by-ways, leading ignorant and thoughtless people to suppose\nthat they have rained down from the sky. The simple fact is, that the\nearth was commanded to bring them forth, and that great mother of all\nvegetable and animal life is obeying the command to-day, just as she did\nin the beginning.\n\nOne of the greatest errors that science has yet committed, or rather that\nscientific men have stumbled upon, is the theory that all living forms\nhave appeared but once in time and place, and that they have thence\ndiffused themselves, in pairs, throughout the globe, as from specific\ncentres of origin. In the primeval oceans, whenever and wherever the\nenvironing conditions of matter were the same or identical, the like\nliving forms made their appearance and flourished for hundreds and\nthousands of years, and finally disappeared, in a fossilized state, as\ntheir environing conditions were changed. They came not genetically--as in\npairs--but thronged the seas in thousands and millions as the divine edict\nwent forth.\n\nAs another conclusive proof, to our mind, of the existence of this law of\nlife, we instance the case of the mango-tree growing in the West India\nIslands, especially along the sea-shore, where it becomes the natural\n_habitat_ of the oyster. It is the belief of some ignorant persons that\nthe oyster climbs these trees and deposits its spawn or \"spat\" upon the\nextreme limbs of the same as they bend down toward the water. This is\nmanifestly an error, and belongs to the same class of fallacies as the\ncommon impression that toads rain down from the sky. The smaller\nmango-trees growing about the bays and inlets of these islands, furnish,\nas we have said, a natural _habitat_ for the oyster, and as the salt\nsea-spray washes their roots and the bark of their trunks, the long\nthin-shelled oysters of that region make their appearance thereon without\nthe presence of spawn, just as they do when old oyster-shells are dumped\nalong our sand-banks in New England. On these dumped shells oysters will\nbe produced abundantly, simply because the conditions are favorable, and\nnot in consequence of the presence of \"spat.\" Oysters have little, if any,\nlocomotive power, and can no more climb the mango-tree than they can scale\nthe cliffs of the Azores. The reason why they hang in pendent clusters\nfrom the extreme boughs of the mango in the West India Islands is, that\nthese boughs are sprayed upon by the rippling waters, and the environing\nconditions being favorable, the indifferent oyster of that region makes\nits appearance.\n\nThere has been no migration of the oyster from one centre of origin to\nanother, any more than there has been a transference of the white whale\nfrom the arctic seas to the fiery equator. Every thing has its place in\nnature, and comes with or without seed as natural laws determine. During\nthe last year I have gathered cedar trees that did not make their\nappearance till late in August and September, long after the seed of the\nprevious year had entirely disappeared, and there was no more life in them\nthan there is in acorns that have crossed the Atlantic a dozen times in\nbulk. And the late Henry D. Thoreau, in his \"Excursions,\" says that they\nwill not stand one such shipment to Europe, and that every acorn that does\nnot sprout by the end of November of the year it matures, is hopelessly a\ndead acorn. This is in harmony with our experience, and we have no doubt\nof the correctness of his observations. How absurd, then, to suppose that\nacorns can retain their vitality so as to germinate after years of\nout-door or other exposure. The seeds of forest-trees that mature in May\nand June, or the majority of them at least, have to be planted in those\nmonths, as all persons engaged in forest culture well know. This is\nspecially true of cedars and oaks, as well as of elms and maples.\n\nStudy the paleontological facts as given by Prof. Frederick McCoy, of the\nUniversity of Melbourne, in Australia, a gentleman highly distinguished\nfor his learning and research. He has explored portions of that continent\nas far down as the azoic rocks, and made many important discoveries as to\nthe past life of the globe. His researches have been especially rich in\nthe Cambrian or Lower Silurian epochs, and have led to many modifications\nin the classification of the various forms of life pervading those earlier\nperiods, and we may say that the facts he has brought to light tend\nstrongly to show the correctness of our theory as taken from the biblical\ntext; as, for instance, the _Trilobites_, occurring so abundantly in what\nis known as the Utica slates. Wherever the slates make their appearance,\nwhether in Australia, America, or any portion of Europe, this fossil,\ncharacteristic of the Silurian and Devonian systems, appeared, not so much\nin time and place as in extended localities and conditions--indicating the\npresence of a law of life such as we have enunciated. We once inquired of\nthe elder Prof. Silliman how long it took for the formation of one of\nthese periods or systems? His reply was curt and pertinent: \"It took long\nenough, young man!\" That satisfied us at the time, and we have never asked\nthe question since. It is prying beyond scientific depth, and the ablest\nscholars in the world will so regard it in the end.\n\nAll fossils follow the same developmental law, and seem to have been\ngoverned by corresponding conditions everywhere. The doctrine of \"_similia\nsimilibus gignuntur_\"--similar conditions producing similar forms--obtains\nuniversally. The _Graptolites_, occurring in the bituminous shales of the\nSilurian sandstone period, afford only another instance of the same law to\nwhich we have called the attention of our readers. In fact, the annals of\nnatural history abound in the most conclusive proofs, as well in the\nfossilized as the living world, of what the paramount text of the Bible\nteaches us.\n\nWhen Professor Ehrenberg, one of the most distinguished classifiers of\nminute forms of life in the world, declared, as he recently did before the\nRoyal Geographical Society of London, that there was \"a great invisible\nrock-and earth-forming life in nature,\" he came pretty near enunciating a\ngreat truth in science; and had he connected his language with the\ninduction of \"environing conditions\" and the sequence of life therefrom,\nhe would have accomplished what we undertook to do in our work begun\nseveral years ago, but not completed and published until 1880. For it will\nbe seen that we had been gathering the material for \"Life: Its True\nGenesis\" for many years before we sat down to the task of writing it.\n\nWhen we said to one of our most intimate college friends that we were less\nthan six months preparing it for the press, we stated what was literally\ntrue; but we had no intention of giving him to understand that we had\nspent only that time in gathering the vast amount of material at our\ncommand--twenty times as much as we could possibly use in the preparation\nof such a volume for the press. The long months and even years of toil and\nstudy spent by us in the needful preparation, were a part of the labor, as\nevery author, writing intelligently on any subject, knows. The immense\namount of care and labor that enabled Hermann von Meyer to prepare his\npaper on the _Arch\u00e6opterix_, rescued from the lithographic slate, is a\ncase in point, as showing how small apparently the labor of accomplishing\na great work for science. The time devoted to preparing the paper was\ntrifling as compared with the result of his achievement. And so with every\none who enters the temple of science with a devout wish to attain success.\n\nIt will be apparent to the religious mind of this country and England, if\nnot to that of Mr. Tyndall himself, that, if the exegetical rendering we\nhave extended to the Bible be correct, there is no necessity whatever for\nthe vast uncomputed periods of time intervening the different geological\nstrata, to which that scientific gentleman refers in his fanciful musings\nupon the Matterhorn!\n\nNor is there any such necessity for it, if what Professor Ehrenberg says\nbe true in regard to the basaltic rocks thrown up by volcanic action in\nthe Island of St. Paul. For if these rocks possess this mysterious power\nof life, He who made them manifestly imparted it. One thing is certain, at\nleast, the rocks did not make themselves; nor did they impart to\nthemselves any life-originating power after they were made. The same power\nthat originated them originated all their characteristic properties, and\nthe same may be said of Professor Tyndall's \"sky-mist\" or any other\nmistier name suggested by scientific men. We have only to take the\n\"Thesaurus\" of the Silurian period, and connect it with the induction of\nthe biblical text, and we shall see that the forms characteristic of that\nperiod appeared not only synchronously in time and space, but also in\nphysical conditions, and consequently, that no immense epochs were\nexpended in the propagation, of species on the \"two-pair\" theory of our\nmaterialistic friends. They simply flourished over vast areas for a while,\nand were then locked up as fossils where they are now found. How long it\ntook for this transformation to take place is manifestly beyond any data\nwe may now have for determining. In the case of some artificial baths in\nwhich crystalline forms appear, we know that it takes only a few weeks at\nleast, and why should natural processes be any more delinquent or\ndefective in their operation than those that are purely artificial?\nRemember that we are not \"musing on the Matterhorn\" as was the gifted\nEnglish naturalist, but upon the text of the equally gifted Isaiah, and\npondering the works of God as seen by the devout prophet in his day. When\nMr. Tyndall can tell us how long it took God to lift the towering\nMatterhorn from its base, he will be in a frame of mind to answer the\nother problems involved in the controversy between us. In an instant--the\ntwinkling of an eye--some of these phenomena have occurred, and recent\nevents, such as wide volcanic disturbances, show how idle it is for man to\nplace a limit to the power of the Most High. Even the \"red snow,\"\nunmistakably a vegetal formation, appearing at times on the loftier Alps,\nis as much a proof of God's power as the ragged mountain peaks on which it\nappears--covering vast areas within a few hours' time.\n\nWhen such men as the late Professor Silliman, and Professor Dana, Sen'r,\nof Yale College, take up the Bible genesis, and speak in high commendation\nof its value to science, it is idle for the Agnostics of that or any other\ninstitution of learning to speak sneeringly of their efforts. They both\nknow (for the elder Benjamin Silliman \"still lives\") that the first\ncommand of this genesis was, for the earth to bring forth its vegetation,\nnot from \"seed\" distinctively so-called, but from the germinal principles\nof life therein; what Ehrenberg calls the \"rock-and earth-forming life\" or\npower of life in matter.\n\nThat the second command was, for the waters of the earth to bring forth\ntheir specific forms of life, including the birds; just where science now\nasserts they originally came from.\n\nAnd that the third command was, for the earth to bring forth the beasts\nthereof, and every creeping thing thereon. Here the \"rock-and\nearth-forming\" power of life ceased, and the language of the genesis\nchanges. It is no longer \"Let the earth bring forth,\" but let the Divine\nenergy intervene!\n\n\"Let us (the divine Trinity in Unity) make man in our own image\"--after\nour own conception of what he should be--the being of two worlds, the\nmaterial and spiritual; and man was made accordingly. God breathed into\nhis nostrils the breath of life, and he became a \"living soul.\" This is\nthe record--brief, grand, historic. No \"evolution,\" no \"involution,\" no\nword without sense or meaning. He who was to have dominion, in his limited\nsphere, over all the earth, thus came in due time for a wiser and grander\npurpose than man has yet seen; but which, in the providence of God and the\nlight of His word, he will yet come to see, as scientific truth advances\nwith the march of religious knowledge. Heaven speed the day when this\nmillennium of truth shall dawn upon us here!\n\nIn this remarkable genesis we have a bridge that spans the chasm between\nthe man and the anthropoid ape as no other bridge spans it. It is a bridge\nover which is flung the living garment of God, and angelic hosts may pass\nit to and fro, as well as the master-minds of our own and future ages. It\ntakes man out of the category of a \"beast of the earth,\" and places him\nwhere all soul-aspiration lifts us--lifts even Robert G. Ingersoll, in his\nhigher inspirational moods, or will lift him when his extreme material\ndogmatisms and false teachings desert him, as we trust they some day will.\nLet him read the \"Student,\" by Bulwer, and he will learn how narrowly\nVoltaire escaped becoming a \"Reformer\" in the Church of England, instead\nof the violent antagonist he was of the corrupt Church of Rome in France.\nWe do not make ourselves; it is the environing circumstances and\nconditions in which we are placed which oftentimes determine our career\nfor good or for evil.\n\nWe had proposed embodying in this Preface one or two caustic reviews of\nour late work, from an Agnostic source, but have been deterred from so\ndoing, for the reason that we deem it in bad taste as well as irrelevant\nat this late day. We shall be pardoned, however, in alluding to _The\nNational Quarterly Review_, for the captious manner in which it treated us\nafter we had courteously replied to several inquiries made of us in its\ntwo- or three-page review. After complaining that we had been \"hailed, by a\nclass of callow religious critics, as a 'Savior' from scientific error and\nenormities,\" it charged us with certain unscrupulous methods of\ncriticism,--such as putting language into Mr. Darwin's mouth that he never\nthought of uttering, etc., etc. And as this pretentious Quarterly put\nseveral questions to us, such as \"When and where the great Evolutionist\nhad taught any such doctrine as this?\" we ventured to reply as courteously\nas we knew how. We endeavored to treat our reviewer fairly, as he had\nhandsomely accorded to us the credit of \"searching the fields of natural\nscience, lance in hand, to deal hard thrusts at impious skeptics,\nmaterialists, and evolutionists--of which Mr. Darwin and Mr. Bastian fare\nthe most severely.\" But we had no thought of using these offensive\nadjectives toward either of the distinguished gentlemen named, and did not\nso use them; however \"unscrupulous\" our methods may have been in other\nrespects. Our reply was unnoticed by the bulky Quarterly, and we were\ncontent with knowing that it was received by its editor, and shared the\nfate of all intrusive communications which it is easier to throw into the\nwaste-basket, especially in hot weather, than to answer in the interests\nof science, when such answers are difficult to be made. This was the first\nand only discussion we attempted to provoke with our \"exhaustive\nReviewers,\" and it will, in all probability, be the last. Little is gained\nby these polemical controversies, when conducted in the spirit of\nunfairness, or with greater asperity than the true interests of journalism\ndemand. The beauty of its kindly advice to us, as a \"scientific critic,\"\nwas that every word of it came back, as a cruel boomerang, into the\nwriter's own face.\n\nBut this is enough. For the last three years we have been mostly engaged\nin writing another book, the character of which is already sufficiently\nindicated in this Preface. The reasons why we have been led to adhere to\nour original purpose of making this a \"Bible Genesis,\" as _The National\nQuarterly Review_ speaks of it, are best known to our more intimate\nfriends, and we do not propose to disappoint them in their expectations.\n\nIf we have failed to make our theory understood by others, we regret it;\nif others fail to understand the inspired text, it is manifestly a matter\nfor them to regret, and for us to deplore.\n\nTo those who have spoken kindly of \"Life: Its True Genesis,\" we return our\nthanks: to those who have extended to it their sharpest criticisms, in\nwhat they believe the true interests of science, we also return our\nthanks. We have no fear that Truth will be crushed in this contest:\n\n  \"Truth crushed to earth shall heavenward rise again,\n  Like wayside flowers that lift their heads, aglow\n  With a far sweeter fragrance when they've been\n  All rudely trampled on by hostile foe,\n  Than when in Flora's gentle arms they've lain\n  The long night through, and wake at early dawn\n  To greet Aurora--jewelled queen of morn!\"\n\nR. W. Wright.\n\nWest Cheshier, Conn., _Oct_. 12, 1883.\n\n\n\n\nPrefatory.\n\n\n\nThe office of a preface is twofold; first, to introduce the author to the\npublic; second, to introduce his work. As the writer seeks no personal\nintroduction, beyond what a favorable or unfavorable reception of his work\nmay give him, he leaves the more formal, if not formidable branch of\nsalutation untouched.\n\nThe work has cost him some labor, as the reader will see. The field he has\ntraversed is vast and varied, and the facts he has gathered are numerous\nand from many and diversified sources--all bearing more or less\nconclusively on the one vital point he seeks to establish, viz: _That the\nprimordial germs (meaning germinal principles of life) of all living\nthings, man alone excepted, are in themselves upon the earth, and that\nthey severally make their appearance, each after its kind, whenever and\nwherever the necessary environing conditions exist_.\n\nThe foundation of this emphatic formula we find in the Bible Genesis, in\nthe words given on our title-page, which are more accurately translated in\nthe Septuagint, than in our common English version of the Old Testament.\nThe words are to be found in the 11th verse of the first chapter of\nGenesis, and the writer confidently believes that they contain the true\nGenesis of Life, although entirely overlooked, heretofore, by both the\nbiblical and scientific scholar.\n\nIn the work which he here gives to the public, he will endeavor to show\nthat all the vital phenomena of our globe, with the single exception\nnamed, find their complete explication in this Genesis of Life; and that\nwe have only to take the scientific Genesis out of some of its more\nimposing categories, to make the two either entirely harmonize, or fall\ninto the same lines of incidence in human thought.\n\nScience has long taught that the _absence_ of necessary physiological\nconditions results everywhere in the _disappearance_ of vital phenomena;\nby reversing its logical methods, it will also find that the _presence_ of\nthese necessary conditions results everywhere in the _appearance_ of vital\nphenomena. Take, for instance, the vegetation of Northern Europe, where it\nis known that the oak succeeded the pine, and the beech the oak, after\neach had held possession of the soil for we know not how many thousand\nyears. In bringing about the necessary conditions of soil, the pine paved\nthe way for the oak, and that in turn paved the way for the beech. Neither\nsprang from the other, nor did the \"selection of the fittest\" have\nanything to do with the appearance or disappearance of either. Each\nyielded fruit \"after his kind,\" whose \"seed\" (germinal principle of life)\nwas in itself, i.e., after its own kind, upon the earth, and made its\nappearance spontaneously,--that is, without the presence of natural\nseed,--whenever the necessary environing conditions favored.\n\nAnd the same law of vegetal propagation is everywhere operative to-day, in\nthe alternations of forest growths, the spontaneous appearance of oak\nforests where pine have been cleared away, and _vice versa_, in some parts\nof the country, where heavy forests of oak timber have been felled. So\nwith the new growths of timber springing up in the paths of tornadoes,\nover large burnt districts, in soils brought up from below the last\nglacial drift, and in hundreds of other instances which the reader will\nfind conclusively verified in these pages,--all making their appearance\nwithout the possible intervention of natural seeds.\n\nThe great value of the Septuagint, as compared with other versions of the\nHebrew Bible, will appear from the fact that it is older by many hundred\nyears than any manuscript copy of the Hebrew text now extant. It was\nundoubtedly translated at Alexandria, in Egypt, as early as the third\ncentury before Christ, while the oldest known Hebrew MS. is a Pentateuch\nroll dating no further back than A. D. 580. Its translators had before\nthem much older and more perfect MSS. than any that survived to the time\nof the masoretic recension, when an attempt was made to give uniformity to\nthe readings and renderings of the Hebrew text by means of the vowel\npoints, diacritical signs, terminal letters, etc., all of which are now\nsubject to rejection by the best Oriental scholarship.\n\nAccording to Iren\u00e6us, this Greek version was rendered at the request of\nPtolemy Lagi, in order to add to the treasures of the Alexandrian library,\nand it no doubt derived its name from the number of Hebrew and Hellenistic\nscholars,--probably the most eminent to be found in that day,--employed\nupon the work. The version comes, therefore, with paramount authority to\nour own times; and we accept its Greek rendering as the highest and most\nconclusive evidence of the authenticity of the text, and the \"new genesis\nof life\" we derive therefrom.\n\n\u03a3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 (as contained in the Septuagint) has almost an identical\nsignification with the Hebrew word ZRA. It means the \"_germ_ of anything,\"\nor the \"germinal principle of life,\" as contained in anything that lives\nor grows. No one will claim that it is used in its literal sense of\n\"seed,\" in the text. For, when the divine command was issued, there was no\nplant or tree, and, presumably, had been none upon the earth from which\nseed could have been derived. The word was used in its larger and more\ncomprehensive (that is, metaphorical) sense, as the \"germinal principle of\nlife in matter,\" or precisely in the sense in which the Greek stoics used\nit in their philosophy. Both Theophrastus and Diogenes use the terms\n\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u00b4\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 expressing \"the _laws of generation contained in\nmatter_\"--precisely the meaning we attach to it in its textual\nconnection. The eleventh verse should read, therefore, as follows: \"Let\nthe earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree\nyielding fruit after his kind, _whose germinal principle of life, each in\nitself after its kind, is upon the earth_\"\n\nWe accept this rendering of \"the seventy,\" because they had the most\ncomplete and perfect Hebrew MSS. before them, and were no doubt better\nscholars, and far more competent renderers of the original text than the\nMasorites who came some seven or eight hundred years after them.\n\nBut this is not the most important point of inquiry in this connection.\nThe materialistic objector may say: \"Admit all this; grant that the true\nrendering is here given; grant even that the true law of vegetal\ndevelopment and growth is here enunciated; what has 'star-eyed science' to\ndo with the '_odium theologicum_?'\" We answer, nothing. We would bury both\ntheological rancor and atheistical pretension in the same barrow, and\nagree never to \"peep and botanize\" over their common grave. But if a great\nscientific principle--one that fits into all the phenomenal facts of\nnature--explains them all, and is, in turn, explained by them--be found in\nthe Hebrew _Hagiographa_, of what less value is it to science than if it\nhad been originally enunciated by Aristotle or Plato? Or--to make the\ninquiry still sharper and more emphatic--of what less value is it to\nscience than if it had originally come from Professor Tyndall or Mr.\nHerbert Spencer?\n\nTake the \"biblical genesis\" as we have enunciated and explained it--with\nall the facts crowded into these explanatory pages--and science has no\nlonger any genetic mystery to brood over, further than that every\noperation of nature is a mystery into which it is useless for scientific\nspeculation to pry. We know what nature _does_, or may know it by the\nproper scrutiny, but we shall never know the causes of things, any more\nthan we shall find God at the bottom of Herbert Spencer's crucible, or at\nthe top of his ladder of synthesis. In the light of the Bible genesis,\nscience can account for the origin of the stalwart oak or the lordly pine,\nwithout going back to any mycological or cryptogamic forms, to follow down\nan ever-changing vital plexus that is as likely to land in a buttonwood\ntree as an oak, or in a hemlock as a pine,--in fact, quite as likely to\nland in a carnivorous animal as in an insectivorous plant. \"Let the earth\nbring forth,\" is still the eternal fiat,--just as implicitly obeyed to-day\nas it was in the world's primeval history, when an exuberance of\nendogenous vegetation laid the foundation of the coal measures. It\nrequires no greater effort on the part of nature to produce the pine, the\noak, the beech, the hickory--all of which we see springing directly from\nprimordial germs to-day--than it did to produce the lowest vegetal\norganism, from an invisible, indestructible \"vital unit,\" or Darwinian\ngemmule, thousands of years ago.\n\nHe who is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, and in whose sight a\nthousand years are but as yesterday, knows no such \"law of variability\" as\nour materialistic friends have been spinning for us in their unverified\ntheories of evolution, natural selection, selection of the fittest,\nrejection of the unfit--force-correlations, molecular machinery,\ntransmutation of physical forces, differentiation, dynamical aggregates,\n_mol\u00e9cules organiques_, potentiated sky-mist, undifferentiated\n\"life-stuff,\" and other hylotheistic and purely hypothetical formul\u00e6,\nwith which the average mind has been well-nigh crazed for the last fifteen\nor twenty years.\n\nBelieving that the time has come to call for \"a halt\" in scientific\nspeculations, and a return to the phenomenal facts of nature as the true\nand only basis on which to formulate the immutable laws of life, matter,\nmotion, etc., the writer submits this volume with trustful confidence to\nthe public. [1]\n\nR. W. Wright.\n\nWest Cheshire, Conn.\n\n\n\n\n\nTrue Genesis.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nIntroductory.\n\n\n\nIt is undeniably true that the progress of scientific thought and\nspeculative inquiry, both in this country and in Europe, is rapidly\ntending towards a purely materialistic view of the universe, or one that\nutterly excludes the ancient and long-predominating metaphysical\nconceptions of Life, to say nothing of the more regnant and universally\nprevailing conception of a God. And it is quite as undeniable that the\ncurrent of experimental research and investigation is setting, with equal\nrapidity, in the same direction. According to the views of many of our\nmore advanced chemists, physiologists, and other scientific and\nspeculative writers and thinkers--those whose experimental investigations\nhave, it is claimed, reached the ultimate implications of all material\nsubstance--there are but two immutable, indestructible, and thoroughly\npersistent elements in the universe--_Matter_ and _Motion_. Everything\nelse, they confidently assert, is either purely phenomenal, or else\nessentially mutable, ephemeral, transitory. Force, according to their\ntheory, is only another name for motion or its correlates, and, hence, the\ntwo terms are interchangeably used by them in predicating their ultimate\nconclusions respecting matter.\n\nLight, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity, molecular force,\nand even life itself, are only so many manifestations or expressions, they\nclaim, of one and the same force in the universe--_Motion_, With the\nexception of matter, it is the only self-persistent, permanently enduring,\never active and reactive agency.\n\nLight, they say, is dependent, heat conditional, electricity and magnetism\nmore or less phenomenal, chemical affinity and molecular force mere modes\nor correlated forms of motion, and all-pervading life itself a mere\npostulate of the schools, or at best only the result of the dynamic force\nof molecules.\n\nDeem not this collocation simply a burlesque on Scientific categories.\nProfessor Bastian, in his great work on the \"Beginnings of Life,\" has\nunhesitatingly said: \"The 'vitalists' must give up their last\nstronghold--we cannot even grant them a right to assume the existence of a\nspecial 'vital force' whose peculiar office it is to effect the\ntransformation of physical forces. The notion that such a force does\nexist, is based on no evidence; it is a mere postulate. The assumption of\nits existence carries with it nothing but confusion and contradiction,\nbecause the very supposition that it exists, and does so act, is totally\naverse to the general doctrine of the correlation of forces.\"\n\nAnd this defiant challenger of the \"vitalists,\" who thus half-sneeringly\nspeaks of those who believe that the vital forces of the universe are\namong the highest potential factors expressed therein, is one who, for the\nlast decade and a half, has mostly lived in the ephemeromorphic world, and\nwho, in diving into the \"beginnings of life,\" has so far lost his way that\nthe all-glorious end of it is as much an inexplicable mystery to him now,\nas when he was more successfully expounding pathological anatomy and\nruthlessly hacking away at anatomical subjects over the dissecting-slab of\nthe London University College. Had he spent less time over this\ndissecting-slab, and more in studying the marvellous manifestations of\nlife in its outspoken beauty of leaf, bud, flower, fruit--things of not\nmere guess and fancy--he would undoubtedly have had a higher appreciation\nof what is most vital in nature, and less of what is simply material in a\nnon-functional sense. With Mr. Herbert Spencer, he gratuitously sneers at\nthe \"old specific-creation hypothesis,\" or the divine fiat in the\nbeginning; but without that fiat, where would he find his ephemeromorphs?\nor even the dead tissues used in his organic infusions for the vainest of\nall human endeavors--that of producing life, or seeking to produce it, _de\nnovo_? He is so immeasurably disgusted with the vitalists that he hardly\nallows himself to speak of \"life\" or even use the term \"vital\" as applied\nto its simplest manifestations, without quotationizing them as terms to\nprovoke both incredulity and derision.\n\nThe world may, however, overlook much of this in him, in view of his past\nprofessional pursuits, as well as in consideration of his eminent services\nas a specialist in science. The dissecting-room of a university is not the\nmost desirable place in the world for profoundly studying the vital forces\nof nature. It is too grim and ghastly a repository of dead men's skulls,\nand \"holes where eyes did once inhabit,\" in which to regard \"life's\nenchanting cup\" as one sparkling to the brim. Detaching a muscle here, and\nlaying bare another there; taking out a sightless eye in one subject, and\nputting the dissecting-knife deep into the pulseless heart of another;\ncutting the fragments of a human body into shreds and tatters over one\ndissecting-slab, and loading down another with splintered bones and\nmangled hands and limbs, is not exactly the sort of occupation to enkindle\nthe highest enthusiasm for \"life,\" in any of its more manifold phases in\nnature. Too many lifeless notions get crammed into the head--to say\nnothing of baffled endeavor in the pursuit--to admit of the more\nconclusive and satisfactory inductions respecting living organisms.\n\nBut why should an assumption of the existence of life carry with it any\ngreater \"confusion and contradiction,\" than a like assumption respecting\neither matter or motion? Simply because the materialists insist, in their\nlogical inductions, upon so distributing the terms of their syllogism that\nonly a negative conclusion shall follow.\n\n\"Matter and motion,\" they say, are alone indestructible.\n\nLife is neither matter nor motion,\n\nTherefore: Life is not indestructible.\n\nThis syllogism is manifestly unanswerable, if there be no fallacy in the\ndistribution of its major and minor terms. But wherein lies the\nincompatibility of reversing the order of its terms, so as to prove that\nneither matter nor motion is indestructible? And would such a judgment,\nthus derived, be any more spurious, the process of reasoning any more\nillicit, or the conclusion any less unanswerable? We might as well say\nthat neither matter nor motion is an absolute entity in the universe,\nwithout some apprehensive intelligence, or rational intuition therein, to\nembrace them as distinct concepts or objects of thought; nor can either\nhave the least conceivable attribute without some co-existing intelligence\nto ascribe it. For to ascribe an attribute, is to conceive or think of\nsuch attribute. And as our general conceptions are conceded to be\nrealities, even by the materialists themselves, it necessarily follows\nthat this conscious _ego_--this thing that conceives, thinks, ascribes\nattributes--is either co-existent with matter, or else antedates it in the\norder of existence. And here--at this identical point in the argument--we\nare irresistibly forced back, in our inductive processes, to the\ntheological conception of a God--the one supreme _Ego_ of the\nuniverse--from whom alone all our intuitions of consciousness, as well as\napprehensive intelligence, is derived.\n\nWe can no more get rid of these inductive processes than we can change the\norder of nature or reverse the inevitable laws of thought. Hence, we are\nconstantly driven to formulate the following, or some equivalent\ninductions:--\n\n1. Cause must exist before effect.\n\n2. Without some vital principle, therefore, pre\u00ebxisting as a cause, there\ncan be no life-manifestation.\n\n3. But there can be no life-manifestation without organic structure.\n\n4. The reverse of this proposition is also true.\n\n5. Which, therefore, precedes the other as a cause, and which follows as\nan effect?\n\n6. Nothing can organize itself. To do so, it must contain within itself\nboth the operating cause and the resulting effect, which is at once an\nincongruent and conflictive judgment.\n\n7. But the thing that organizes must exist before the thing organized,\nwhether it be a vital principle or an intelligent agency.\n\n8. Hence Life, either as a pre\u00ebxisting cause or vital agency, must precede\nboth animal and vegetal organism.\n\nAgain:--\n\n9. Cause is that which operates to produce an effect, as effect is that\nwhich is produced by an operating cause.\n\n10. But whatever operates to produce a life-manifestation must precede it\nas an operating cause.\n\n11. Life, therefore, whether as a blind or intelligent force or agency,\nmust precede its own manifestation; that is, must exist as an operating\ncause before there is any produced effect.\n\n12. And this is true both as regards physical and moral effects.\n\n13. Our intuitions, as the final arbiters of judgment, demand this or some\nequivalent order as the only one embraced in a logical praxis.\n\nAnd since there can be no sound without an ear to appreciate it, so there\nbe can no matter without an existing _ego_, in some state of consciousness\nin the universe, to apprehend it--to ascribe to it attributes.[2] On what,\ntherefore, are we to predicate the existence of either matter or motion,\nexcept it be these intuitions of consciousness whose validity, so far as\nwe have any knowledge whatever on the subject, rests exclusively on that\n\"breath of life,\" which was breathed into man when he became a living\nsoul? But if our intuitions are not realities, then nothing is a reality.\nAll is as unsubstantial, as vague and shadowy, as Coleridge's \"image of a\nrock,\" or Bishop Berkeley's \"ghost of a departed quantity,\" as he once\ndefined a fluxion. We may, therefore, retort upon Professor Bastian:--The\n\"materialists,\" must give up their last stronghold--we cannot even grant\nthem a right to assume the existence of either matter or motion, since\nboth manifestly depend, for their slightest manifestation, upon the more\npotent agency of \"vital force,\" as expressed in thought, volition, and\nconsciousness--that triumvirate of the intellectual faculties without\nwhich neither matter nor motion could have so much as a hypothetical\nexistence.\n\nThe great trouble with Professor Bastian, as with Mr. Herbert Spencer, is\nthat he advances a purely materialistic hypothesis, and then goes to work,\nwith his quantitative and conditional restrictions, to eliminate all vital\nforce from the universe. As he has been no more successful in finding\nGod--the Infinite source of all life--at the point of his\ndissecting-knife, than has the speculative chemist at the bottom of his\ncrucible, or Mr. Spencer at the top of his ladder of synthesis, he\nresolutely grapples with logic, as a last resort, and as remorselessly\nsyllogizes God out of the universe as he would a mythological demon\ninfecting the atmosphere of his dissecting-room. In the same way, he\nsuccessfully syllogizes all life out of existence: although, in the very\nact of constructing his syllogism, he demonstrates its existence as\nconclusively as that matter and motion are objective realities in the\nworld of mind and matter which is about him. He fails to see, however,\nthat the thing which demonstrates must necessarily precede the thing\ndemonstrated, as life must necessarily precede its manifestation. In\nadmitting the existence of \"vital manifestation,\" therefore, he virtually\nadmits an antecedent vital principle, lying back of an effect as a cause,\nwhich must exclude anything like a contradictory judgment, so long as the\nlaws of the human mind, in respect to logical antecedents and consequents,\nremain as they are.\n\nWhatever may be the alleged inaccuracies of the Bible Genesis or the\ndisputes heretofore indulged in respecting the _Hagiographa_, or \"sacred\nwritings\" of the Jews, it will hardly be denied by the Biblical scholar\nthat some of the most important discoveries in modern science, especially\nin the direction of astronomy, as well as in geological research and\ninquiry, confirm rather than throw doubt upon their more explicit\nutterances. This has been so marked a feature in the controversy, that\nwhenever scientific speculation has thrown down any fresh gage of battle,\nas against the validity of these \"sacred writings,\" the advocates of the\nlatter have only had to take it up to dispel the mists of controversy and\nachieve a more conclusive triumph than ever. For the truth of this\nstatement it is only necessary for us to instance a few of the more\nimportant facts contained in the Bible Genesis. And should it be found\nthat the writer of this volume has discovered, in a long overlooked, much\nneglected, and inaccurately translated passage of this Genesis, a key that\nunlocks the whole \"mystery of life,\" as the great battle is now waging\nbetween the materialists and vitalists of this country and Europe, it will\nmost conclusively establish the point we shall here make--that in no\nequally limited compass, in ancient or modern manuscript or published\nvolume, since the first dawn of letters to the present time, are there to\nbe found so many conclusively established facts of genuine scientific\nvalue as in the first chapter of Genesis.\n\nIn dispelling the mists of prejudice, and possibly of doubtful\ntranslation, let us look this \"genesis\" squarely in the face:--\n\n1. Take the statement that \"in the beginning\" the earth was without form\nand void, and darkness rested upon the face of the depths. Here is not\nonly no conflict with science, but the great suggestive fact which led\nLaplace to construct his \"Nebular Hypothesis,\" or that magnificent\nsystem of world-structures which regards the universe as originally\nconsisting of uniformly diffused matter filling all space, and hence\n\"without form and void,\" but which subsequently became aggregated by\ngravitation into an infinite number of sun-systems, occupying\ninconceivably vast areas in space.\n\n2. Nor can science well afford to cavil at that other most important\nsuggestive statement that \"the spirit of God\"--the great formative force\nof the universe--moved upon the face of the depths, after which the\nevening and the morning were the first day, that is, the first distinctive\nepoch in the order of creation. When materialistic science shall define\n\"gravitation\"--the supposed aggregating force of infinitely diffused\nmatter in space--so as to make it a distinct and separate factor in the\nuniverse from \"the spirit of God,\"--that spirit which was breathed into\nman when he became a living soul, and which, we are told, \"upholds the\norder of the heavens,\" then its devotees may sneer at the Bible Genesis,\nand the logical deductions to be drawn therefrom.\n\n3. Again, science can have no conflict with the Bible Genesis, except in\nthe most hypercritical way, in the affirmative statement that God set two\ngreat lights in the firmament, the one to rule the day and the other to\nrule the night; and that \"he made the stars also.\" For it is nowhere\nstated that the \"greater light\" was not made to perform a similar office\nfor each of the other planets of our system, or that it was not set in the\nfirmament to adorn the skies of other and far-distant worlds, as \"bright\nArcturus, fairest of the stars,\" adorns our own.\n\n4. Nor can materialistic science dispute the more explicitly revealed\nfact, that the order of creation, so far at least as animal and vegetable\nlife are concerned, is precisely that to be found in geological\ndistribution, or as unerringly recorded in the lithographic pages of\nnature. And yet nothing was known of these pages--not a leaf had been\nturned back--at the time the Bible Genesis was written. So that, whoever\nwas its author, this precise order of distribution could only have been\n\"guessed at,\" setting aside its inspirational claims, by the writer of\nthis most remarkable genesis.\n\n5. And again, science can have no successful conflict--certainly none in\nwhich she will ultimately come off victor--in reference to the equally\nexplicit statement that every living thing, and every living creature,\neither yields seed, bears fruit, or brings forth issue, \"after his kind,\"\nand distinctively none other. For this would seem to be the one inflexible\nlaw governing all living organisms, from which there can be no divergence\nin any such sense as the \"scientific genesis,\" pretentiously so called,\nwould authoritatively indicate. No \"increase in variety,\" which Mr.\nSpencer regards as the \"essential characteristic of all progress,\" will\never enable us \"to gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles.\"\n\n6. Nor will materialistic science ever succeed in overthrowing the Bible\ntheory herein advanced, that \"the germs of all living things, man only\nexcepted, are in themselves (that is, each after its kind) upon the\nearth,\" and that they severally make their appearance whenever the\nnecessary environing conditions occur. This most remarkable statement of\nthe Bible genesis will be found to fit into all the vital phenomena\noccurring upon our globe, explaining the appearance of infusoria, all\nmycological and cryptogamic forms, as well as all vegetal and animal\norganisms. All these come from \"the earth wherein there is life,\" and\nhence the divine command for the earth \"to bring forth\" every living thing\n(except man) \"after his kind.\"\n\nBut let us embrace, in the proper antithetical summary of statements, some\nof the more distinctive points of antagonism between the Bible genesis and\nthat of materialistic science:--\n\nTHE BIBLE GENESIS.\n\n1. The Bible Genesis presents the theological conception of a God, or an\nInfinite Intelligence in the universe, with whom, as personified, there is\nno variableness, neither shadow of turning.\n\n2. The Bible Genesis represents every living thing as _perfect_ of its\nkind, which the earth was commanded to bring forth from seed or \"germs,\"\ndeclared to be in themselves upon the earth.\n\n3. The Bible Genesis represents God as causing to grow, out of the ground,\nevery tree that is \"pleasant to the sight and good for food,\" also every\nplant of the field \"before it was in the earth,\" and every herb of the\nfield \"before it grew.\"\n\n4. The Bible Genesis represents God as causing the waters of the earth to\nbring forth abundantly great whales and every living creature that moveth\ntherein, and every winged fowl that flieth above the earth in the open\nfirmament of heaven.\n\n5. The Bible Genesis represents God as causing the earth to bring forth\nevery living creature \"after his kind,\" enumerating them in the order in\nwhich they appear in geological distribution.\n\n6. The Bible Genesis represents God as making man in his own image, after\nhe had commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth abundantly of\nevery other living creature.\n\n7. The Bible Genesis represents God as breathing into man \"the breath of\nlife,\" and he became a \"living soul,\"\n\n8. The Bible Genesis represents God as creating the earth for the abode of\nman--giving him dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air,\nthe beasts of the earth, and of every living thing that creepeth upon the\nface of the earth.\n\n9. The Bible genesis represents God as exercising a moral government over\nman, to the exclusion of every other living creature.\n\n10. In fine, the Bible Genesis represents man as only \"a little lower than\nthe angels.\"\n\n\nTHE SCIENTIFIC GENESIS.\n\n1. The Scientific genesis virtually eliminates the idea of a God from the\nuniverse, by assigning to natural causes all the diversified and\nmyriad-formed phases and changes that have taken place therein, extending\nthrough an infinite duration of past time, and constantly confronted by an\ninfinite duration of time to come.\n\n2. The Scientific Genesis represents every living thing as more or less\n_imperfect_ of its kind, but advancing towards perfection by some\nunderlying law of variability or selection of the fittest, or by gradual\ndevelopment from lower into higher organisms.\n\n3. The Scientific Genesis emphatically repudiates the idea of any divine\nagency in the growth of plants and trees, and insists that \"life,\" in all\nits manifold phases, is only \"an undiscovered correlative of motion,\" or,\nat best, only a sort of _tertium quid_ between matter and motion.\n\n4. The Scientific Genesis represents all fishes, amphibia, reptiles,\nbirds, etc., as travelling along their respective lines of developmental\nprogress and differentiation, from points far back in geologic time, and\nconstantly working their way up from cold and flabby creatures into those\nof higher cerebral activity, and brighter and more varied life, until\ngigantic winged reptiles mounted into the air and became birds.\n\n5. The Scientific Genesis attributes the appearance of every living\ncreature upon the earth to a law of \"evolution,\" by which one thing\nconstantly overlaps another, forming a sort of stairway for lower\norganisms to climb into higher, without regard to \"kind,\" or even orders,\ngenera, or species.\n\n6. The Scientific Genesis distinctly takes issue with that of the Bible\nrespecting the divine origin of man, and insists that he has been climbing\nup from protoplasmic matter, through a thousand other and lower organisms,\nuntil he finally leaped from an anthropoid ape into man.\n\n7. The Scientific Genesis emphatically repudiates the idea of a soul as\nthus derived, and even insists that \"conscience,\" the highest known\nmoral factor in the universe, is only a modified expression of the\nsocial instincts of the lower animals--the difference being in degree\nonly, not in kind.\n\n8. The Scientific Genesis promptly takes issue with this creative plan and\npurpose--insisting, in the dazzling speculations and fancies of its\nadherents, that well known physical and physiological laws have worked out\nall these phenomenal aspects and changes, and that these laws are wholly\nindifferent as to whether man shall have dominion over the shark and the\ntiger, or they dominion over him.\n\n9. The Scientific Genesis illogically insists that \"natural laws,\"--those\nexpressing no sovereign will, and having \"no seat in the bosom of\nGod\"--are fully adequate for the government of man, he exercising to that\nend all the higher powers with which, by evolutional changes, he has\nbecome endowed.\n\n10. While the Scientific Genesis represents him as only a little higher\nthan the apes!\n\nAnd yet no scientific authority has ever been claimed for these sacred\nHebrew writings. They were simply designed as a rule of human faith and\nconduct, ostensibly having the divine sanction, and containing historical,\ndevotional, didactic, and prophetical writings, to be read through, at\nleast once a year, in the Jewish synagogues.\n\nBut the most important of these antithetical statements, so far at least\nas modern scientific research and inquiry are concerned, is that which\nrepresents the germs of all living things--man alone excepted--as being\nimplanted in the earth itself. We take the definition of the Hebrew word\n_ZRA_, translated \"seed\" in the 11th verse of the 1st chapter of Genesis,\nfrom Professor Edward Leigh, of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, in his \"Critica\nSacra,\" first published in 1662:--\"_Sparsit, asparsit, cum aspersione\nfudit, diffudit_,\" etc, that is, \"something sown, scattered, universally\ndiffused, everywhere implanted,\" as a germ in the earth. That the Hebrew\nword _ZRA_. does not mean, in this connection, the seed of a plant or\ntree, is manifest from the fact that the first plant or tree, from which\n\"seed\" could have been derived, had not yet appeared upon the earth.\n\nThe exact translation is, \"whose primordial germs are in themselves (that\nis, each after its kind) upon the earth,\" implanted therein, as the\n\"_diversa diversorum viventium primordia_\" of Dr. William Harvey, were\noriginally implanted in the earth. This illustrious physician and\nbiologist, the discoverer of the circulation of the blood, not only taught\nthe doctrine expressed in his phrase \"_omne vivum ex ovo_,\" but that of\n\"primordial germs\"--living indestructible \"principles of life\"--existing\nin the earth itself. For it is evident that he uses the word \"egg,\" in its\nmore general sense, as designating any material substance capable of\nreceiving his \"primordium\" (first principle of life) and developing itself\ninto a living organism.\n\nThe whole controversy, as at present conducted by the materialists and\nvitalists, resolves itself into this one question:--Whether life springs\nfrom what Dr. Harvey calls a \"primordium,\"--a pre-existing vital germ or\nunit--or whether it originates _de novo_, as the materialists assert, from\ninfusions contained in their experimental flasks, or from plastide\nparticles contained in protoplasmic matter, or from the still more daring\nhypothesis of \"molecular machinery\" as worked by molecular force? It is\ncertain that the materialistic theory is quite as inexplicable, on the\nbasis of analogical reasoning and microscopical investigation, as that\nindicated in the Bible Genesis; while the vitalistic theory would seem to\nbe more in harmony with vital phenomena, and hence the more rational\nhypothesis of the two. Besides, the Bible Genesis answers to the logical\nnecessity of predicating a determinate cause for each and every vital\neffect, or each living organism apparently springing from plasmic\nconditions or mere structureless matter. Whenever the seeds of plants or\ntrees are actually planted or sown in the earth, this logical necessity\nrests on an induction impregnably laid in cause and effect; while the\nmaterialistic dogma, _nihil ex nihilo_, would necessitate a like induction\nwherever seed is not sown. In either case the change that ensues is\nmanifestly due to vital properties, whether the same be inhering in the\nseed, or in necessary environing conditions. And the vital processes are\nthe same, with the single difference as to actual environment.\n\nThe germ in the seed is capable of assimilating, by well-determined and\nthoroughly specialized processes, the nutrient matter contained in its\nenvironment, precisely as the \"primordial germ\" develops under its\nenvironing conditions. From the moment they strike their rootlets into the\nground, the processes of development and growth are the same. The only\npoint, however, necessary to make in this connection, is, that when we go\nback to the first living organism of a species--its primordially developed\nform--we necessarily reach environing conditions within which there is no\nsuch thing as a germ-cell with an exterior environment corresponding to\nthe testa of seeds, or to any conceivable notion we may have of seeds\nthemselves.\n\nAt this point--one not merely theoretical, or speculatively possible only,\nbut absolutely fixed and determinable in our backward survey of the vital\nforces of nature--we find individual parentage lost in a natural matrix,\nor in the vital principle implanted as a \"primordium,\" in the earth\nitself. To this inevitable induction of Dr. Harvey we are all driven in\nthe end, by those intuitive processes of reasoning which are hardly less\nconclusive than mathematical induction itself. We may call these\n\"primordia viventium\" plastide particles, bioplasts, vital units, or\nwhatsoever we will,--the name is nothing, the working process is\neverything. Scientific speculation accomplishes nothing, therefore, by its\nnew terminology, except it be to confound the ignorant and astonish the\nwise. To call the homogeneous basis of an egg \"blastima,\" and its germinal\npoint a \"blastid,\" is all well enough in its way; but it adds no new\nknowledge, nor additional wealth of language, wherewith to predicate vital\ntheories, whether they relate to the progeny of a hen-coop or the lair of\na tiger in an Indian jungle.\n\nTeach us to know what nature _does_, not what she _is_; and whatever of\n\"divine revelation\" is vouchsafed us, whether it be found in the majestic\n\"Poem of the Dawn,\" attributed to the inspired pen of Moses, in the\n\"myriad-minded Shakespeare,\" or the irradiated and deeply-prophetic soul\nof a Shelley, let us accept it with thanks, if not to the inspired authors\nthemselves, at least to \"the great Giver of life\" who imparted their\ninspiration.\n\nWe accept the theory of \"primordial germs,\" not simply because it is\ncontained in the Bible Genesis, nor because it was conceived by the great\nand gifted Harvey as a possible solution of the whole difficulty, but\nbecause it presents, as we have before said, a satisfactory explanation of\nall the phenomenal facts of life with which we are acquainted. If Mr.\nHerbert Spencer will descend from his stilted theory of \"molecular\nmachinery worked by molecular force,\" and tell us what it all means; and,\nat the same time, turn us out a single plastide particle, or fungus spore,\nby any generating process referable to \"the machinery\" in question, we\nwill as devoutly worship Matter and Motion as ever ancient Egyptian did\nthe god Osiris. But until he does this, we prefer to accept the positive\nassurance of Professor Lionel S. Beale, a far more competent authority to\nspeak of hypothetical molecules, that none of the \"forces possessed by the\nmolecules of which the primitive nebulosity of the universe was composed\"\never produced a vital manifestation, or succeeded in \"making life a slave\nto force.\" We shall consider this question of \"molecular force\" in its\nproper place, and with reference to the different theories of life\nadvanced by the materialists, without pursuing it further in this\nconnection.\n\nThe evidence we shall present in reference to the alternations of forest\ngrowths, and the impossibility of accounting for them on any theory of\nseed-distribution--alternations covering, in many instances, independent\nforests springing up on a vast scale--and the still wider dispersion of\ndomestic weeds, grasses, forage plants, etc. in localities where they were\nnever known before, will be conclusive, we think, of the correctness of\nour position, that the Bible Genesis contains _the true key to the mystery\nof life_. Bear in mind that the true theory of life, whenever it shall be\nreached in human conception and formulated into definitely-known processes\nof action, must satisfactorily explain all life-manifestations, as\nNewton's theory of gravitation accounts for the movements of all celestial\nbodies. And the simpler the theory when once formulated--the more\nperfectly it falls into the grooves of definitely-expressed thought, and\nthe more harmoniously it adapts itself to all vital manifestations--the\nmore conclusive must be the induction on which it rests.[3] The emphatic\nstatement that the \"primordial germs\" of all living things are in the\nearth, from the lowest infusorial form to the highest vital organism below\n\"specifically-created\" man, when supplemented by the scientific statement\nthat \"vital units\" make their appearance whenever environing conditions\nfavor, is conclusively a theory which accounts for all the\nlife-manifestations heretofore occurring upon our globe.\n\nAnd this theory falls at once into the necessary categories of human\nthought. Life, as generally defined, is a state of organized being wherein\nthere is functional activity; while a state, or _status_, is an incidence\ndetermined by environing conditions. But back of each of these--life and\nits _status_--there must lie some efficient cause, producing, in the first\ninstance, the environing conditions, and then the functional activity\ndependent on organization. To assume that this efficient cause is simply\nthe effect or result of organization--one of its dependent conditions--is\nbegging the whole question, and, at the same time, discarding a very\nimportant element in the problem--that of conditional environment. What\nthis efficient cause _is_, is a question that awakens no responsive\ninquiry. It strikes its roots too deeply into the intuitions of\nconsciousness for the soul to give back an intelligible reply. Certain it\nis that neither metaphysical speculation, nor scientific inquiry, will\never enable us to reach the roots of this question, or extract from them\nthe first quantitive essence of life itself.\n\nWe shall also consider, in their proper place, the various theories of\nlife which have been advanced from time to time by the materialists, in\ntheir avowed hostility to current religious beliefs, and especially those\nfounded on the sacred Hebrew writings, and the supplementary teachings of\nthe New Testament. And to show the extent of this hostility, and the real\n_animus_ of those waging it, it is only necessary to refer to the great\ncentral doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures, that Life--natural, spiritual,\neternal--is \"the gift of God.\" And this is the grand corner-stone of all\nreligious edifices--those erected by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the\nPhoenicians, the Greeks, and even the inhabitants of farther India.\nMaterialistic science must, therefore, deal its first and most effective\nblows at \"Life,\" either as a theory to be resolutely assailed and\noverthrown, or else thoroughly ignored and set aside, in the more imposing\nand august temple of Science. Hence, the reader will find, in none of the\ngreat encyclopedias prepared under the supervision of scientific men, the\nslightest mention whatever of \"Life\" as a subject worthy of consideration\nat their hands. It finds, of course, its meagre definitional place in the\ndictionaries, but the bulky and more exhaustive encyclopedias have no room\nfor it, except as it may be defined, under some correlate of motion, as\n\"the latent possibility of a nebula,\" or of \"undifferentiated primeval\nmist,\" originally pervading the interplanetary spaces.\n\nWe have no disposition to charge such materialists as Professors Tyndall,\nBastian, Haeckel, Virchow, and Mr. Herbert Spencer, with directing their\nexperimental batteries against the phenomenal facts of \"life\" for the\npurpose of overthrowing the foundations of religious faith and belief in\nthe world. They are all eminent scientists, and apparently earnest seekers\nafter truth in the several directions in which their respective paths of\ninvestigation have been pursued. But they manifestly array their opinions\nagainst the vitalists on the assumption that there is no scientific value\nwhatever in the many and singularly diversified statements respecting\n\"life\" in both the Old and New Testaments. And this, it may be claimed, is\nnecessitated by the generally accepted dogma, that science and religion\nare more or less hostile, the former resting on the inexorable logic of\nfacts only, and the latter entirely on _pre_conceived and _pre_judicial\nnotions respecting faith and belief. To this position of theirs we have no\nobjection to make, so long as they subject their scientific statements to\nthe one rigid ordeal of positively ascertained facts. But when they set\nthemselves to spinning their theories of life on the strength of \"nebular\npotentialities,\" and the possibilities of \"undifferentiated sky mist,\" we\nmust insist that they are infinitely wider of the mark than the\ntheologians who claim that the great formative power of the universe is\nGod, and that his \"spirit,\" and not gravitation, \"upholds the order of the\nheavens:\"--certainly much wider of the mark than was Pope, when he wrote\nof the universe:--\n\n  \"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,\n  Whose body nature is, and God the soul.\"\n\nThe truth is, that religion is quite as much the handmaid of science as\nscience can be said to be the handmaid of religion. She breathes far more\nhousehold laws for her devotees, if she does not veil her \"sacred fires\"\nmore modestly from the sight of men. She is certainly less dogmatic, less\ndictatorial, less abounding in positive assertion, than what now passes\nfor \"science,\" in the popular estimation. Perhaps Mr. Herbert Spencer\nrepresents the scientific side of a greater number of questions agitating\nthe public mind to-day, than any other one man, and he is still\nindustriously engaged in solving, or endeavoring to solve, a greater\nnumber of social problems. And yet the most enthusiastic admirer of this\ngentleman will be forced to admit, when driven to the wall of actual\ncontroversy, that one-half, if not two-thirds, of his more formidable\nstatements, put forth in the name of science, remain undemonstrated as\nscientific truths. We are thankful enough, however, for the one-third he\nhas vouchsafed us to let the other two-thirds pass as the dogmatic\nachievements of his wonderfully gifted pen.\n\nProfessor Beale asks the question, whether \"a man who has the gift of\nscience must ever be wanting in the gift of faith?\" It is certain that\nthis inquiry sharply emphasizes the antagonism at present existing between\nmaterialistic science and religious faith. But there is only one reason\nwhy this antagonism should be continued, and that is, the persistent claim\nof science to superior recognition in all cases where there is the\nslightest apparent conflict between the two. Certainly no man ever did\nmore to popularize the genuine truths of science in this country than\nProfessor Agassiz, or worked more successfully to that end. He was willing\nto place the decorative wreath on the starry forehead of science, but\nrefused to pluck from the soul \"the starry eyes of faith and hope,\" that\nman might be dwarfed down to the \"nearest of kin\" to the anthropoid ape.\n\nWhen we come to this assumed relationship in genetic types, we have not so\nmuch as laid the first abutment of the bridge by which these revivers of\nLucretian materialism would span the chasm between mind and matter,\nbetween the spiritual and physical side of man, between dark brute sense\nand \"a soul as white as heaven.\" For going back to undifferentiated\nprimeval mist, and following down the whole line of vital phenomena, from\nwhatever subtle molecular combinations their first manifestation may have\narisen, until we reach the highest differentiated organism below man, we\nshall find the chasm between the physical and the psychical not a\nthousandth part spanned. And even if man, with the assistance of all the\nmaleficent spirits that \"walk the air both when we wake and sleep,\" could\nspan this chasm, it would be only by another bridge of Mirza across which\nno daring mortal could ever pass.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer, in his \"Principles,\" thinks he has mastered the\nnecessary psychological, if not mechanical, engineering for the successful\nconstruction of this bridge. In that branch of his work entitled the\n\"Principles of Psychology,\" he so far abandons the exact scientific method\nas to take up psychical phenomena, and deal with them genetically, as he\nwould with the phenomenal manifestations of organic life, in the\ncontinuous chain of ideas every where presented as consecutive thoughts in\nthe universe. He finds, or claims to find, in these psychical\nmanifestations, a constant tendency towards differentiation--towards\nadvanced and continuously advancing differences, varieties, and new modes\nof thought--the same as, or similar to, those taking place in living\norganisms. He accordingly assumes, for the science of mind, as complete a\nfoundation on which to base the doctrine of \"evolution,\" as in the case of\neither physical or physiological science. But he is no less troubled, in\nthis psychological realm, with divergent varieties, and exceptional\nvariations and changes, than when he plants himself on the more solid\nsubstratum of life in the abounding realm of nature. His psychological\ndifferentiations present too many and constantly-shifting divergencies and\nre-divergences--exceptional branchings in one direction, and still more\nexceptional in another--to admit of any sufficiently potentiated\npotentiality for bridge timber. The arch to such a bridge would have to\nabut, according to Professor Tyndall, on a vital foundation at one end,\nand spring from undifferentiated sky-mist at the other.\n\nThe bridge will never be built.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nLife--Its True Genesis.\n\n\n\nThe profound Newton did not attempt to show what the gravitative force of\nthe universe was. He bore himself more modestly, only endeavoring to show\nthat such a force existed, and that it accounted for all the movements of\ncelestial bodies, even to their slightest perturbations. He frankly\nadmitted his inability to determine what this force was, but by\nobservations and calculations made with the greatest care, he ascertained\nthat its action upon matter was proportional to its mass directly, and to\nthe square of its distance inversely; and, with the requisite data and the\nprinciples of pure geometry, he demonstrated that this mysterious\nforce--utterly inapproachable by human conception in its mystery--not only\ngoverns and controls the movements of all the mighty masses of matter\nrolling in space, but transmits its influence--not successively, but\ninstantly and without diminution--to the smallest conceivable molecule on\nthe outlying boundaries of the universe. In the same calm and\ncomprehensive spirit, if it be possible for us to reach it, let us look\nupon this mysterious force called \"life,\" not to show that it is simply a\n\"correlate\" of this or that motion (a thing utterly impossible of\ndemonstration, if it actually exists), but to ascertain how and in what\nway it acts, and by what known law, if any, it is governed.\n\nIn all the vast realm of Reality there is no more conclusive and palpable\nfact than that \"life\" exists--appearing wherever the bright light flashes,\nthe loving raindrop falls, the dancing brook ripples, the sparkling\nstreamlet murmurs, and the broad river flows to mingle with the sea. All\nalong this bright pathway of sunlight and cool translucent wave, this\nwonderful principle of vitality manifests itself in all-glorious\nlife--filling the air with balmy odors; making perennial bud, leaf and\nflower, speeding from sire to son, from heart to heart, from spirit to\nspirit, from age to age, from time into eternity.[4] For like all living\nprinciples, in this realm of Reality, it cannot die. It is immortal in its\nprimal source, immortal all along its bright pathway, immortal as it flows\nonward to eternity, immortal in its return to the bosom of God. It is no\npostulate, no corollary, no mere hypothetical judgment; no \"undiscovered\ncorrelative of motion,\" no \"baseless fabric of a vision\"--but the one\ngrand comprehensive _Datum_ on which all the objective, as well as\nsubjective, data of the universe rest. It is the same \"spirit that moved\nupon the face of the depths,\" in that majestic Dawn of Creation when the\n\"evening and the morning were the first day;\" the same spirit that\n\"upholds the order of the heavens;\" that pervades the vast realm of\nReality, that flashes in the bright sunlight, descends in the loving\nraindrop, ripples in the dancing brook, sparkles in the murmuring stream,\nand forever flows onward bearing its primal fulness to the sea.\n\nTo deny the existence of this vital principle because we cannot bottle it\nup in our airless flasks: to reduce it to some unknown correlate of motion\nbecause it constantly defies our poor mental grasp; to insist upon its\nartificial production because elementary substances may be chemically\nhandled in our laboratories--is the same sort of preposterous folly that\nNewton would have been guilty of, had he attempted to show that there was\nno such thing as \"gravity\" in the universe; that it was only some\nundiscovered correlative of a thermal limit,--some unknown molecular\ncomplexity or entanglement in cosmic ether--some spontaneously occurring\naffinity or antagonism of ethereal molecules in the interplanetary\nspaces--some \"potentiated potentiality\" of mere sky-mist,--conditions of\nwhich he could have had no experimental knowledge, nor have given the\nslightest analogical proof. That we are justified in thus partially\ntravestying the technical methods of some of our modern scientists, so\ncalled--especially those of the materialistic school--those advocating a\npurely physical theory of life, we need only quote a sentence or two from\nProfessor Lionel S. Beale, of King's College, London. This eminent\nphysiologist, in his recent work on \"The Mystery of Life,\" says:\n\"Notwithstanding all that has been asserted to the contrary, not one vital\naction has yet been accounted for by physics and chemistry. The assertion\nthat life is correlated force rests upon assertion alone, and we are just\nas far from an explanation of vital phenomena by force-hypotheses as we\nwere before the discovery of the doctrine of the correlation of forces.\"\nAnd he further adds that each additional year's labor, in this special\nfield of investigation, \"only confirms him more strongly than ever in the\nopinion that the physical doctrine of life cannot be sustained.\"\n\nMany able and eminently learned physiologists have been disposed to\nrecognize the presence of pre-existing \"germs\" in the earth, but not to\nthe extent of accounting for all life-manifestations therein, as the\ndoctrine is conclusively taught in the Bible Genesis. The language of this\ngenesis is too clear and explicit to be misunderstood, in its proper\nrenderings. It especially emphasizes the remarkable and most extraordinary\nstatement, at least for the period in which it was written, that all life\ncomes primordially from the waters and the earth. Note the order in which\nthe command \"to bring forth\" was issued:--\n\n1. Let the earth bring forth its vegetation.\n\n2. Let the waters bring forth the fishes, the amphibia, the reptiles, _the\nfowl of the air_.\n\n3. Let the earth bring forth the beast, the cattle, every living creature,\nand everything that creepeth upon the earth--each after his kind.\n\n4. _Let us make man in our own image_.\n\nAnd this is the precise order in which the Scientific genesis proceeds,\nwith all the lithographic pages of nature turned back for its inspection.\nBefore vegetation there could have been no animal life upon the globe.\nThis fact is most conclusively proved, not only by geographic and\npaleontologic records, but by legitimate induction. From the highly\ncrystalline, and, for the most part, non-fossiliferous era, far back in\nthe Laurentian period, down, in the order of time, to the modern or\npost-tertiary period, there is one continuous history of\nlife-manifestations, written upon the stratified rocks, in the order of\nthe Bible Genesis. Was this mere guess and fancy on the part of the\nwriter, even to the seemingly improbable element wherein is assigned the\norigin of the \"fowl of the air?\" Bear in mind that nothing was known of\ngeological distribution at the time this most remarkable genesis was\nwritten. Had there been, it is certain that the careful and painstaking\nHesiod, who suffered no important fact of the _Cosmos_ to escape him,\nwould have given us some hint of it in his \"Works and Days;\" for Greece\nwas, even in his early day, largely the recipient of Phoenician learning\nand literature, as she was certainly Phoenicia's foster-child in letters.\n\nBut the more conclusive proofs of the correctness of the order of\ncreation, as given in the Bible Genesis, are to be found in the accurate\nobservations of modern geological science. Before there could have\nappeared in the primeval oceans any living organism, even the lowest\nprimordial forms of crustacea, there must have been marine\nvegetation--that springing from inorganic matter and laying the foundation\nof organic life. Plants originate in, and are solely nourished by,\ninorganic substances; or, to speak more definitely, they originate from\nprimordial germs--the first elementary principles of life--whenever\ninorganic conditions favor, and, assimilating air, water, and other\ninorganic materials, convert them into organic substances, or such as\nanswer to the conditions of organic life. In doing this, they take up and\ndecompose carbonic acid, retain the carbon, and give off oxygen--a vital\nprocess not known to occur in the case of animal life. That their\nprimordial germs, or vital units, are in the earth, as the Bible Genesis\ndeclares, is conclusively shown by the experimental processes first\nsuccessfully entered upon by the Abb\u00e9 Spallanzani, Charles Bonnet, and\nothers, and more recently renewed and advocated by M. Pasteur, and his\nco-laborers in super-heated flask experimentation, as well as logically\nestablished by inductive methods.\n\n_Nihil ex nihilo_ is conceded to be as conclusive an induction as _omne\nvivum ex vivo._ That is, as without some chemical unit--some primary least\nconsidered as a whole--there can be no chemical action, so without some\nvital unit, in the same primary sense, there can be no vital\nmanifestation. The doctrine of \"chemical units\" is universally conceded,\nand that of \"morphological units\" almost as universally claimed. What\ngreater incongruity is there, then, in assuming the presence between the\ntwo of a physiological or vital unit? [5] At all events, it is as\nimpossible to demonstrate the non-existence of the one unit as the other.\nAnd so long as legitimate induction supports the doctrine of the Bible\nGenesis, it is useless to indulge in a contrary assumption which is wholly\nwithout verification or proof.\n\nBut to return to land vegetation. This appeared and flourished throughout\nthe Devonian period, if not anterior to it, and long before the appearance\nof batrachian reptiles and other low air-breathing forms of life. In fact,\nthere could have been no life-breathing atmosphere until the earlier land\nvegetation had whipped out its more destructive elements, and paved the\nway, in necessary conditions, for the appearance of air-breathing animals.\nHence the command for the earth to bring forth both marine and land\nvegetation--the vegetation of the earth--before there was any similar\ncommand respecting either marine or land forms of organic life. But by\nwhat logical method was this exact order inferred in the Bible Genesis?\nNeither the Jews, nor their earlier Hebrew ancestors, nor the Phoenicians\nbefore or after them, were in any sense of the word metaphysicians; nor\ndid their language admit of those nicer distinctions and speculative\nconclusions which would have enabled any writer using it, thousands of\nyears ago, to draw the commanding induction contained in this remarkable\ngenesis. There is nothing in the incomparable methods of M. Comte, or the\nmetaphysical spirit of Herbert Spencer, in his most daring speculations,\nwhich gives the world a more legitimate and conclusive induction than is\ncontained in this simple statement of the order of creation. That it\nshould have been a mere piece of guess-work on the part of Moses, or any\nother writer of his time,--covering, as it does, so many particularities\nof statement, all according with the exact observations of geologic\nscience, and supported by paleontologic records,--requires quite as much\ncredulity of judgment as to accept it for divinely inspired truth. A\ndisciple of M. Comte might object to this conclusion as susceptible of two\ninterpretations, the one a legitimate induction, and the other not. But\nthe mind of the profounder reasoner would accept the interpretation which\nis supported by the higher reason, and validated by the greater number of\nconclusively-established facts. In the case of a strongly intuitive mind,\nit might be possible to guess the exact order of three or four apparently\ndisconnected events, but to arbitrarily associate with them other and more\ndistinctively subordinate occurrences, like the appearance or\ndisappearance of whole groups and classes of plants and animals, the\nsupposition that guess-work, and not positive information, governed in the\nformation of a judgment, is at once rejected because of its utter\nincredibility.\n\nIt is not our purpose, however, either to affirm or dis-affirm the\ninspirational claims of the Bible Genesis. We simply take its language as\nwe find it, stript of its Masoretic renderings and irrational\ninterpretations, and unhesitatingly aver that the three Hebrew words,\ntranslated in our common version--\"whose seed is in itself upon the earth\"\n--contains, when properly rendered, the key that unlocks the whole\n\"mystery of life,\" or, as Dr. Gull emphasizes it, \"the grand _questio\nvexata_ of the day.\" It expressly declares that \"the primordial germs of\nall plant-life (and, inferentially of all life) are in themselves (_i.e._\neach after its kind) upon the earth,\" and we have only to supplement this\nphysiological statement with the \"necessary incidence of conditions,\" as\nformulated by the physicists, to explain every phenomenal fact of life\nhitherto occurring upon our globe.\n\nTake all the hints as to the spontaneous origin of life to be met with in\nAristotle; all those subsequently repeated by Lucretius and Ovid; all the\nexperiments of the renowned Abb\u00e9 Spallanzani--all the alleged \"fantastic\nassumptions\" of M. Bonnet--all the theories of \"panspermism,\" by\nwhomsoever advocated--all the fortuitous aggregations of \"_molecules\norganiques,_\" as put forth by the French school of materialists--all the\n_primordia viventium_ of the gifted Harvey--all the \"molecular machinery\"\nand \"undiscovered correlates of motion\" formulated by Herbert Spencer and\nProfessor Bastian--in fine, all the more brilliant theories of life ever\nspun from the recesses of the human brain,--and we shall find that they\nall fit into the three simple Hebrew words to be found in the Bible\nGenesis, _and all are explained by them._ We say _all_, with one exception\nonly--that of man. And how inconceivably grand and majestic this\nexception! The crowning work of creation was MAN. He came from no \"muddy\nvesture of decay;\" no mere life-creating fiat spoke him into existence. He\nwho was to have \"dominion over all the earth\"--who was to be created only\na little lower than the angels--\"in the image of God created He him.\" And,\nbreathing into his nostrils the breath of life, _he became a living soul_!\n\nHere is the \"bridge\" over which the \"evolutionist\" may pass, if he will,\nwithout wearing either the dunce's cap or the ass's ears. It spans the\nchasm between the anthropoid ape and man as no other bridge can span it.\nAcross this bridge is flung the living garment of God, and how grandly,\nyet reverently and humbly, did the profound Newton cross it! Oh, ye\ndefiant iconoclasts of sublime faith in the \"old doctrines;\" ye who talk\nso flippantly of the \"potentialities of life in a nebula;\" who sit on the\nawe-inspiring Matterhorn, at high noon, and muse in sadness over \"the\nprimordial formless fog,\" teeming with all the mighty possibilities of\nmyriads of sun-systems like our own; and, musing, sneer, if you can, at\nthe idea of a \"specific creation\" in the beginning--of an Infinite\nIntelligence that directs and superintends all! Because _you_ cannot\nannihilate matter, nor conceive of its annihilation in the infinitessimal\ncompass of _your_ brain, is that any reason why Infinite power and\nintelligence may not have spoken it into existence at _His_ sovereign and\ncommanding will? If man would presumptuously press towards the threshold\nof the Infinite, let him do it reverently, and with humility of spirit,\nand not as one \"that vaunteth himself of strength,\" or \"multiplieth words\nwithout knowledge.\"\n\nBut let us examine the Bible Genesis a little further in this direction.\nIt is said in the second verse of the first chapter that \"the spirit of\nGod moved upon the face of the waters,\" that is, upon the face of the\nabyss--the chaotic mass at creation--the earth \"without form and void.\"\n\nWhat is here meant by \"the spirit of God,\" is that life-giving breath or\npower of God which operates (continuously operates) _to impart life to\ninanimate nature._[6] From the connection in which it here stands it means\nthis, as in other connections it means the power which operates\n(continuously operates) to produce whatever is noble and good (God-like)\nin man. There is no implication in the text that this life-giving\nprinciple or power was suspended in the act of creation. On the contrary,\nthere is abundant evidence in nature to show that it is just as operative\nnow as it was in the beginning. One of the definitions given by Professor\nGibbs of this spirit is, \"that which operates throughout inanimate\nnature,\" not that which once operated, and then forever ceased its\noperations. And Professor Gibbs no doubt meant by \"nature,\" in this\nconnection, not only all the physical phenomena she presents, but the\naggregate or sum total of all her phenomena, whether active or passive,\nanimate or inanimate, embracing the world of matter or the world of\nmind.[7] \"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,\"--not a part nature,\nand a part not nature.\n\nAgain, in the eleventh verse, it is distinctly declared that the _ZRA_.\nthe \"germinal principle of life,\" is in the earth, producing each living\nthing, at least in the vegetable world, after its kind, that is, after its\nown class, order, genera, species. Hence, the three distinct and separate\ncommands given to the earth, or to the earth and its waters, \"to bring\nforth.\" No such command would have been given to the earth, had it not\nfirst received its _baptism of life_ from God--in other words, derived the\nanimating principle of life from the source of all Life.\n\nAnd hence, also, the two separate averments in the second chapter of\nGenesis, both entirely meaningless apart from the construction we here\ngive it, that \"out of the ground made the Lord God to grow\" the\nvegetation of the earth, and \"out of the ground\" produced he (or caused\nto be produced) every beast of the field, etc.,--all of which has a\ndefinite and comprehensive significance in this one sense only, that the\nanimating principle of life is in the earth, as the language of this most\nremarkable genesis implies. And this seems to have been the patristic\nidea, namely, that law and regularity, not arbitrary intervention, nor\nany specific act of creation, were what governed in the case of both\nvegetal and animal life.\n\nSt. Augustine says: \"In prima institutione natur\u00e6 non quseritur\nmiraculum, sed quid natura rerum habeat.\" And it is certain that both St.\nThomas Aquinas and St. Basil held the same view. And they further held\nthat the animating principle of life once implanted in nature, held good\nfor all time. But we are not seeking for early and medi\u00e6val authority.\nWhat we propose to show is, that nature is still implicitly obeying just\nsuch a law as that implied in the command given her \"to bring forth,\"\nhowever doubtful may be the authority on which it rests, in the opinion of\nour modern scientists.\n\nAnd how completely does this genesis of life take man out of the\ndefinitional formula embracing the \"beasts of the earth.\" From the lowest\nvertebrate, in Mr. Darwin's plexus, to the highest quadrumane (his nearest\nallied type to man), covering almost an infinite variety of distinct\nliving forms, the distance to be traversed, in order to reach man, is\nhardly more than one-third the length of the still unlinked and\nuncompleted chain. In the average capacity of the monkey's brain-chamber,\nto say nothing of his other characteristic differences, the distance is\nnot half traversed. As a \"beast of the earth,\" he remains allied to his\nown type, and nothing higher. Both Darwin's vertebral _plexus_, and\nHerbert Spencer's \"line of individuation,\" must begin with the lancelet\nand its disputed head, and end in the Catarrhine or Old World monkey. No\n_a priori_ induction will ever extend this line _or plexus_ to man. The\ndevelopmental chain, if indeed there be one, has no congenital link that\nwill either drag man down to the \"beast of the earth,\" or lift the latter\nup to the transcendent plane of humanity. Each must remain specifically in\nhis own type, whatever may be their vertical tendencies, upwards or\ndownwards.[8] And this word \"type\" implies a fundamental ground-plan--an\narchetype--an original conception of what each should unconditionally be,\nand what plane each should as unconditionally occupy. Man's place in\nnature can never be changed or modified by materialistic speculations.\nWhatever theories the materialists may spin into the unsubstantial warp\nand woof of their scientific formul\u00e6 respecting life, will never stand\nbefore the tenacious and stubborn physiological facts which almost any\nthoroughly-informed and well-read scholar of nature may readily present\nagainst them.\n\nEven the wild Indian of our prairies has a more rational conception of\nlife and its accountabilities, than some of these learned professors\nwhose theoretical conclusions we find it imperative to handle. With all\nhis rude, rough nature, hanging like so many mental clogs about him,\nthis unlettered savage recognizes the fact that the earth is the\n_genetrix omnium viventium_, or the living _mother_ on whose bosom he\nshall rest when his spirit has passed to the happy hunting-fields\nbeyond. Unlettered as he is, and unread in any genesis of life, he fails\nnot to perceive that the earth is forever teeming with the germinal\nprinciples of life, and that when his prairie fires have invaded the\nforests in which he had previously hunted the deer, other and different\nforest growths are constantly making their appearance, without any\napparent intervention of seeds, but not without the supervisional care\nand direction of the Great Spirit,--while many of his hardier prairie\ngrasses have disappeared, only to give place to the more nutritious\n_gramma_ coveted by his favorite game.\n\nAnd here we may as well anticipate an objection which will be raised\nagainst the presence of this animating principle of life in the earth, as\nto meet and answer it further on in the argument. But as the objection to\nwhich we refer is one of those dragon's teeth we do not care to leave\nbehind us, we will meet it at the very threshold of the controversy. It\nwill probably be admitted that the vegetation of the earth may appear in\nthe way and manner indicated in the biblical genesis, the same as\ninfusorial forms appear in super-heated and hermetically-sealed flasks.\nBut how about the pre\u00ebxisting germs or vital units of the mastodon, the\nmegatherium, and other gigantic mammiferous quadrupeds of the Eocene\nperiod? From what experimental flasks, in the great laboratory of nature,\ndid they first make their appearance? The objection is a legitimate one,\nand we will answer it.\n\nBut first, let us do so from the materialist's own stand-point. Time, they\nall agree, is practically infinite--past time, as well as future; while\nmatter is susceptible of an infinite number of diverse movements, changes,\nmodifications, combinations, etc.,[9] chemically as well as molecularly\nconsidered. This, they claim, is not a mere hypothetical judgment, but a\nmathematically demonstrable proposition. Grant it for the sake of the\nargument, and then see if the mastodon does not promptly emerge from some\none of their \"experimental flasks,\" as they choose to put it.\n\nFor if the number of these diverse movements, changes, modifications,\netc., of matter, have been infinite, in its progress from the lowest\nstatical to the highest dynamical manifestation, then every possible, as\nwell as conceivable, form of matter, must have existed somewhere, and at\nsome time, in nature, even to its highest and most potentially endowed\nplasmic form in which there is life. And if this be true, and the\nmaterialists will not deny but rather affirm it, then the inter-uterine\nconditions of matter, in the case of all animals (the mastodon included),\nas well as the inter-cellular conditions in the case of all plant-life,\nmust have existed, with their necessary environments, somewhere and at\nsome time, in the all-hutched laboratory of nature. Hence, in the infinite\nnumber of these changes and combinations--in the countless collocations of\nmolecules and chemically changed conditions of matter, we have the\npossibilities of all terrestrial life-manifestations, as we have, in the\ninfinite number of cosmical changes, the possibilities of all planetary,\ncometary, and asteroidal manifestations. For whenever these vital changes\noccur, the life-manifestations dependent thereon, must as inevitably\nfollow as that infinitely diffused matter should be aggregated by gravity,\nor by what Humboldt calls, in his \"Cosmos,\" the \"world-arranging\nIntelligence\" of the universe.\n\nWho shall say, then, that in that immensely remote and long-protracted\nera--the Eocene period--in which the gigantic elephantoids first made\ntheir appearance, there did not exist somewhere, in some one of nature's\nmore cunning and prolific recesses, the exact plasmic conditions necessary\nfor the appearance of the mastodon? If they existed anywhere (which is\nconcessively possible), with the necessary environment (also concessively\npossible), then the mastodon could no more help wallowing out of his\nessential plasma than the earth can help responding to its axial motion.\nAll things are framed in the prodigality of nature, and she never commits\nan abortion upon herself. If both the conditions and necessary environment\nwere at any time present, as they must have been on the materialistic\ntheory, the mastodon is just as easily accounted for as the first fungus,\nor the first fungus-spore. [10]\n\nAll physicists, as well as physiologists, agree that individual species of\nboth plants and animals have _disappeared_ from the earth for the want of\nthe \"necessary conditions\" under which they once lived and flourished.\nWhat greater fallacy is there, then, in the assumption that they\noriginally _appeared_ from the presence of these identical conditions,\nwhatever they may have been, and whenever they may have occurred? We put\nthis question not simply because the Bible Genesis asserts that \"_out of\nthe ground_ made the Lord God to grow\" every plant of the field \"before it\nwas in the earth,\" as well as every herb of the field \"before it grew;\"\nnor because it declares that their primordial germs are in the earth; nor\nbecause it speaks of the earth as containing within itself the \"animating\nprinciple of life.\" But we put it on the irrefragable logic of the\nmaterialist's own premises and conclusions. They may use other and\ndifferent physiological terms from what we should care to employ, but\ntheir \"correlates of motion,\" their \"molecular force,\" their \"highly\ndifferentiated life-stuff,\" etc., may possibly mean nothing more than what\nwe mean by \"vital units,\" \"vital forces,\" \"vital conditions,\" etc. Their\npreference for the terms they employ, over essential \"qualities\" or\n\"properties\" of matter, is entirely due to the obvious invalidity of their\nconclusions, except as their physical theory of life may help them out of\nan unpleasant dilemma. \"Force\" is a more convenient term on which to\nallege the _de novo_ origin of life--its spontaneous manifestation in\ntheir experimental flasks--than any vital principle primarily inhering in\nmatter, and manifesting itself whenever conditions favor. It is to\nvalidate their own reasoning that they construct their fallacious\nforce-premises, from which to draw their materialistic inductions. In\nother words, theirs is the fallacy of _non causa pro causa,_ or that\nvicious process of reasoning which alleges some other than the real cause\nof vital manifestation, and fastens induction where none is legitimately\ninferable.\n\nBurdach, Buffon, Pouchet, Needham, and other professed vitalists, agree\nthat in all life-manifestations there must be some pre\u00ebxisting vital force\nor principle, without which no living thing, whether plant or animal, can\ncome into existence.[11] M. Pouchet says: \"I have always thought that\norganized beings were animated by forces which are in no way reducible to\nphysical or chemical forces.\" The Abb\u00e9 Needham is satisfied to formulate a\n\"force v\u00e9getative,\" so far as plant-life is concerned; Buffon invariably\nfalls back on vital force or energy; and Burdach on a \"force plastique,\"\nwhich is essentially inseparable from nature in her vital manifestations.\nAccording to the latter, the whole universe is an \"_organisme absolu_\"\nconstantly endowed with life, and giving expression to it in all\nconceivable directions. And all that these vitalists need, to give a full\ninterpretation to their facts of observation, is to supplement their\ntheories with the Bible declaration that the animating principle of life\nis in the earth, from which all living things make their appearance, each\ndistinctively after its own kind, whenever environing conditions favor.\nFor they severally recognize these \"necessary conditions\" as inseparable\nfrom all vital manifestation.\n\nAn effort has been made to show that Goethe was the great inspired prophet\nof the doctrine of \"Evolution,\" as a ceaselessly progressive\ntransformation of one thing into another, in the metamorphoses of plants\nand animals; and Haeckel quotes this passage from him as entirely\nconclusive of this point: \"Thus much we should have gained (towards\nsolving the problem of life) that all the more perfect organic beings,\namong which we include fishes, amphibians, birds, mammals (and at the head\nof the latter, man), to be formed according to an archetype, [12] which\nmerely fluctuates more or less in its ever persistent parts, and moreover,\nday by day, completes and transforms itself by means of reproduction.\" But\nthis attempt to give a poetic glorification to Haeckelism in Goethe's\nspeculations, and bring his commanding name into support of the evolution\ntheory of development, will prove utterly futile in the light of his\n\"archetype,\" and the persistency with which he concedes that nature\nadheres to perfected forms.\n\nGoethe accepts the doctrine of _vis centripeta_, beyond the influence of\nwhich no developmental progress can be made in the way of diversifying or\nvariegating ideal types. In other words, he virtually fixes limits to\nvariability, from the outermost circumference of which reversion must\ninevitably take place. His whole doctrine may be summed up generally, if\nnot specially, in these words: \"The animal is fashioned _by_ circumstances\n_to_ circumstances,\" as the eagle to the air and mountain top, the mole to\nthe loose soil in which it burrows, the seal to the water in which he\nfrolics, and the bat to the cave, the twilight, and the night air. We\nshould rather say that the animal is fashioned, after the Great\nArchitect's pattern, _to_ circumstances, and is only varied _by_\ncircumstances, and that within the narrowest limits of variability. For\nthe most that Goethe means by his \"archetype\" is an ideal pattern, after\nwhich, or on which, a natural group of plants or animals has been\nfashioned within the limits of possible variability. But by whose mind, or\nrather within whose mind, was this ideal pattern--this essential\narchetype--fashioned? Whence this ideal type, this natural group, this\n_Archeus_ pervading all nature and fashioning all organic matter? Not from\nthe mind of Goethe certainly, nor from that of Aristotle or Lucretius, but\nfrom the one supreme mind of the universe, in which the groups of all\nliving things were originally fashioned in the archetypal world--that\nworld \"which,\" according to Bolingbroke, \"contains intelligibly all that\nis contained sensibly in our world.\"\n\nThis archetypal doctrine of Goethe, coupled, as he couples it, with the\ninfluences of environment, or necessary external conditions, with typical\nmodifications only, while it entirely harmonizes with the Bible genesis of\ntypes (everything modeled after its kind), is far from aiding, or in any\nway abetting, the materialistic hypothesis of Haeckel, unless we make\nnature at once the creator and modifier of her own archetype. And even\nthen the variability of species remains unaccounted for, except as we\nattribute to nature a _purpose_ to modify persistent forms under a law\nthat is immutable even in its variability. For the assumption of an\narchetype carries with it an archetypal plan and purpose, with a degree of\nintelligence, either in or above nature, capable at once of conceiving the\ntype and determining the limits of its variability. The question is not,\ntherefore, as many may seem to think, whether species originate by miracle\nor by law, but whether laws and causes can exist independently of any\npredetermining will or agency in the universe.\n\nOur language, and that of all civilized peoples on the globe, must be\nthoroughly recast, not only in its philological and etymological\ncharacter, but in its ideologic, etiologic, and other significations,\nbefore we can successfully fall back on an antecedent cause without an\neffect, or an effect without an antecedent cause. Besides, the human mind\nwould have to undergo as complete a subversion of structure as language\nitself, before any such attempt at recasting it, on the basis of modern\nmaterialistic ideas, could possibly prove successful. And then, at least\none-third of our language would have to disappear in this iconoclastic\nreform. For instance, take any well-tabulated synopsis of our categories\nand their relations, and they would nearly all have to be recast or\nentirely abandoned. Time, space, matter, motion, intellect, abstract\nideas, volitions, affections, etc., with their several correlates or\nco-relations, would all have to undergo a thorough recasting process. The\npersonal, intersocial, sympathetic, moral, and religious relations and\nobligations, would have to be summarily set aside for future revision, if\nnot for sweeping rejection. All our ideas of life, materiality,\nspirituality, animality, vegetability, sensibility, etc., would have to\nfall into greater or less desuetude, the language disappearing with the\nideas. All the words expressing our ideas of a superhuman agency, of God,\nangels, heaven, revelation, religious doctrines, sentiments, acts of\nworship, piety, human accountability to divine institutions, rites,\nceremonies, etc.,--to say nothing of maleficent spirits, mythological and\nother fabulous divinities, entering so largely into the spirit and\nmachinery of all our best poetry--would utterly disappear from our\nlanguage. All our churches, minsters, chapels, tabernacles, cathedrals,\nand temples erected to the \"living God,\" embracing the finest and most\nmajestic architecture of the world, would have to succumb to the\niconoclastic zeal of these materialistic reformers. The ten categories of\nAristotle would disappear in the one category of Haeckel, or possibly the\ntwo categories of Bastian--Matter and Motion! Philologically speaking, we\nshould all be at sea, drifting, like a set of deaf-mutes, on a wide and\ninaudible ocean--all inarticulate, tongue-tied, voiceless--with only the\nscreeching of the sea-mew, or some other sepulchral bird of the night, to\ngreet us as in wide-mouthed derision of our speechlessness and folly.\n\nBut let us see how the incontestible facts of nature, and the truths of\nscience, fit into the three simple Hebrew words referring to \"germs,\" or\nthe germinal principle of life, instead of the natural \"seeds\" of plants\nor trees. We have given what we claim to be the true rendering of these\nwords. To show how perfectly they harmonize with all the phenomenal\nmanifestations of life in nature, we hurriedly pass to our third chapter.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nAlternations of Forest Growths.\n\n\n\nNo fact has more profoundly puzzled the vegetable physiologist than the\nalternations of forest growths which are everywhere occurring without the\napparent interposition of natural seeds, and which have been considered as\nwholly inexplicable except as one unsatisfactory theory after another has\nbeen suggested to account for the wide dissemination and distribution of\ntheir seeds. We have had any number of these theories, more or less\ningeniously constructed, but it is safe to say that none of them\nsatisfactorily accounts for more than a very limited number of the\nphenomena presented. It is only within a comparatively recent period that\nthese alternations of timber growth have attracted the attention of\nscientific men; consequently little more than crude suggestions and\nill-digested facts are at the command of the general reader and writer.\nAnd yet the facts themselves, such as they are, would fill a dozen volumes\nof the size of Dr. Hough's recent \"Report upon American Forestry.\" We can\nonly give a few of the more important facts we have gathered, and many of\nthese are so deficient in necessary detail that their value is greatly\nlessened for scientific uses. This is especially true of nearly all those\nnoticed and collated by Dr. Hough, in his report to the United States\nCommissioner of Agriculture, made in 1877, in which the alternations in\nquestion are referred to at length, but no new suggestions presented, nor\nany very important new facts given.\n\nIf our construction of the Bible genesis be the correct one, it will, we\nthink, be unhesitatingly admitted that all the facts collected and\ncollated by Dr. Hough, together with others more carefully noticed by our\nablest writers on vegetable physiology, not only harmonize with this\nancient Hebrew text, but so completely fit into it, both in its\nimplications and explications, that adverse criticism will be awed into\nsilence rather than provoked into any new controversy on the subject. This\nremarkable genesis declares that the germs of all living things are in\nthemselves upon the earth--\"upon the face of all the earth.\" It is true\nthat this declaration, as contained in the 11th verse of the first chapter\nof Genesis, is textually limited to the vegetation of the earth; but the\nfurther emphatic statement that \"the animating principle of life\" is in\nthe earth, coupled with the more substantive fact that God commanded the\nwaters and the earth to bring forth abundantly of every living creature,\nwith the single exception of man, conclusively extends the language of the\n11th verse to whatever vegetable and animal life the earth was\nspecifically directed to \"bring forth.\" It is our purpose to consider, in\nthis connection, not only the various facts noticed and theories suggested\nby our ablest writers and thinkers on the subject of seed-distribution,\nbut to ascertain, as far as possible, to what extent their several facts\nand theories harmonize with natural phenomena, and at the same time\ndetermine what disposition should be made of them in the light of this new\ngenesis, herein for the first time disclosed.\n\nProfessor George P. Marsh, in his work on \"Man and Nature,\" in which he\ntreats largely of forestry in Europe, says that \"when a forest old enough\nto have witnessed the mysteries of the Druids is felled, trees of other\nspecies spring up in its place; and when they, in their turn, fall before\nthe axe, sometimes even as soon as they have spread their protecting shade\nover the surface, the germs which their predecessors had shed, perhaps\ncenturies before, sprout up, and in due time, if not choked by other trees\nbelonging to a later stage in the order of natural succession, restore\nagain the original wood. In these cases, the seeds of the new crop may\nhave been brought by the wind, by birds, by quadrupeds, or by other\ncauses; but, in many instances, _this explanation is not probable_.\" It is\nmanifest that Professor Marsh uses the word \"germs,\" in this connection,\nin the sense of seeds only; for no seed-bearing trees \"shed\" any other\ngerms than the natural seeds they bear. And while he admits that, in many\ninstances, the generally accepted theory concerning the dissemination of\nseeds is not a probable one, he still clings to the exploded notion that\nvegetable physiology furnishes a record of \"numerous instances where seeds\nhave grown after lying dormant for ages in the earth.\" He further says, in\nthe same connection, that \"their vitality seems almost imperishable while\nthey remain in the situations in which nature deposits them;\" although he\nis reluctant to accept the accounts of \"the growth of seeds which had lain\nfor ages in the ashy dryness of the Egyptian catacombs,\" believing that\nthey should be received with great caution, if not rejected altogether.\nBut why he should scruple about receiving these speculative accounts of\nancient Egyptian cereals, which are sometimes hawked about the country for\ntwo and three dollars a seed, and, in the same breath, accept the absurder\ntheory that seeds may lie dormant for ages in soils where the hardest and\nmost enduring woods will utterly perish and disappear in a few brief\nyears, is wholly inexplicable to us, except as an hypothesis to force a\nconclusion, or to account for the otherwise unaccountable alternations of\nforest growths.\n\nBut the idea that nature has any cunning devices by which she may hide\nseeds away where they will remain \"almost imperishable\" for ages, is not\nentirely new with Professor Marsh, nor is it any suggestion that would\nbe protected by copyright. In finding the winds, birds, quadrupeds, and\nother assumed agencies of distribution improbable, he seeks, with Dr.\nDwight, for \"the seeds of an ancient vegetation,\" and, finding none by\nactual observation, concludes that nature has some occult, and\nthoroughly surreptitious, method of hiding them away, even in soils\nbelow the last glacial drift, where no microscope can possibly reach\nthem. As the accounts of seeds taken from the mummy-cases of Egypt may\nanswer the purposes of those seeking to palm off some new cereal as a\nnine-days wonder on the ignorant, so these speculations about the\nindestructibility of seeds, when hidden away by nature, may answer a\nlike purpose in imposing upon the over-credulous; but they will hardly\nbe accepted by the intelligent, much less the scientific, in the light\nof all the facts herein given. The simple truth is that all seeds are\nspeedily perishable by out-door exposure. We hardly know a single seed\nthat will survive beyond the second year when subjected to such\nexposure. If they do not germinate the first year, their vitality is\nutterly gone the second year, as hopelessly so as if they had been cast\ninto the fire and consumed to ashes.\n\nBut there is a large class of vegetable phenomena which wholly excludes\nthe idea of this wonderful vitality of seeds. It is well known that soil\nbrought up from deep wells and other excavations, often produces plants\nentirely unlike the prevailing local flora. This soil has been brought up,\nin many instances, from beneath the last glacial drift, where it must have\nremained for not less than a quarter of a million years at the lowest\ncalculation, and may have remained for millions of years, if not longer;\nand yet the same singular phenomenon is presented. Exposed to the sun's\nrays, and the fructifying influences of showers and dews, the soil\nburgeons forth into an independent flora, and such as are nowhere to be\nfound in the surrounding locality. The writer, in digging a well in\nWaukesha, Wis.,--a place now famous for the curative properties of its\nwaters--in 1847, struck soil at a depth of about thirty-five feet--that\nwhich was evidently ante-glacial. The place is some twenty miles back from\nMilwaukee, and the whole section, far into the interior of the state from\nLake Michigan, is one of drift, covering the primeval soil at various\ndepths, from a few feet up to a hundred or more; and the imbedded soil\nmust have remained in its place for untold ages. And yet, it was no sooner\nbrought to the surface than it produced several small plants that were\nwholly unlike the prevailing local flora; although, unfortunately, they\ndid not sufficiently mature to enable us to determine their genera and\nspecies. Considerable portions of this soil were dried and subjected by\nus, and the late Dr. John A. Savage, then president of Carroll College, to\nmicroscopic examination, but without discovering the slightest trace of\nany seed, or anything resembling seed, in the several portions carefully\nexamined. The soil, however, contained, in its imbedded place, several\nlarge Norway spruce logs, in a more or less perfect state of preservation.\nBut there were no cones, nor chits to cones, to be found in it, although\nthe most rigid examination was made at the time to discover them. That the\nseeds of these delicate little plants should have survived the wreck of\nthis ancient Norwegian forest, or the drift from one, and burst forth into\nnewness of life after hundreds of thousands, not to say millions of years,\nis decidedly too large a draft upon our credulity to be honored \"without\nsight.\" But we will return to the alternations of forest growths.\n\nIt is within a comparatively recent period that extensive areas of\nhemlock, in Greene and Ulster Counties, N.Y., were cut off to supply the\nneighboring tanneries with bark. These clearings were no sooner made than\noak, chestnut, birch, and other trees of deciduous foliage, sprang up and\nentirely usurped the place of the hemlock; for the reason, no doubt, that\nthe soil had become chemically unbalanced for the growth of the latter,\nwhile its condition was entirely favorable for the development of the\n\"germs\" (not the natural seed) of the former. These changes in timber\ngrowths have been widely noticed in all parts of this country, as well as\nin Europe, but the universal supposition has been that they came from the\nnatural seeds of their respective localities, those either scattered by\nthe winds, or borne thither by the birds, by quadrupeds, or by some other\nnatural agency. No one has suggested the theory of \"primordial germs\" or\n\"vital units,\" or come any nearer to it than Dr. Dwight did in suggesting\n\"the seeds of an ancient vegetation.\" The great truth of the Bible genesis\nhas been wholly overlooked by reason of a faulty translation in the first\ninstance, as taken from the Masoretic renderings of the sixth century, and\nimplicitly followed since.\n\nIn 1845, a violent tornado swept a wide strip of forest in Northern New\nYork, from the more thickly settled portions of Jefferson County to Lake\nChamplain. The timber that succumbed to the force of the tornado, and\ngrowing at various points along its track, was mainly beech, maple, birch,\nash, hemlock, spruce, etc.; but it was rarely replaced, at any point, by\nthe same timber, in the growths that almost immediately followed. The\ntrees that are now growing along the track of the tornado are principally\npoplar, cherry, birch, and a little beech and ironwood: no ash, maple,\nspruce, or hemlock, except here and there, at considerable intervals, a\ntree or two which may have been replaced by natural seed. The important\nfact noticeable, in this connection, is that the aggressive timber--that\nreplacing the old--entirely usurped the place of the evergreen growths,\nsupplanting them with those that were wholly deciduous. Besides, it does\nnot appear that the poplar, the cherry, and the ironwood, which were\naltogether aggressive, previously grew near enough to the track of the\ntornado to have possibly supplied the seed necessary for their appearance\nand growth.\n\nThe fact was specially noticeable at the time, and has been widely\ncommunicated since, that the white oak timber cut off at Valley Forge for\nfuel and other army purposes in the American camp, in the winter of\n1777-78, was succeeded by black oak, hickory, chestnut, etc.--the white\noak entirely disappearing, although by far the most favorably situated for\npropagation by seed. But the alternations of forest growths had attracted\ntoo little attention at that time to render the meagre facts given of any\nspecial value to scientific men. If the usurping timber had grown in the\nimmediate neighborhood (a fact not stated), it might have come from\nnatural seeds, and not from primordial germs under \"favoring conditions.\"\n\nIn the Ohio Agricultural Report of 1872, an account is given of a\nstorm-track, in that state, which swept for a considerable distance, and\nwas violent enough to bear down all the timber before it. It is stated\nthat the path of this tornado (which must have occurred many years ago)\n\"had grown up with black-walnut, another and different growth from that\nprostrated by the force of the storm.\" In this instance, there were no\nneighboring trees, except perhaps at distant intervals, from which the\nnuts of the black-walnut could have been derived, unless they had been\npromiscuously strewn by the tornado along its entire track. But it is,\nunfortunately, not stated that the tornado occurred at that opportune\nseason of the year when the nuts were properly matured for planting.\n\nIn many parts of the United States, particularly in the South and West,\nthe paths of local tornadoes--those sweeping the native forests long\nbefore the axe of civilization invaded them--may still be traced by the\nalternations of timber growths, extending for long distances, and\nthrough forests where there were no neighboring trees from which it was\npossible that their seeds could have been derived. One of these\ntornadoes the writer traced many years ago (as early as 1837) in South\nAlabama, and he is satisfied, both from observation and reading, that\nthe instances are rare, if not altogether exceptional, where the clean\npath of a tornado, through any of our primitive forests, has been\nsucceeded by the same growth of timber as that borne down by the winds.\nWhere the path of this ancient tornado of Alabama swept through a pine\nforest, a clean growth of oak was buttressed on either side by pine;\nand _vice versa_, where it swept an oak forest. And it is certain that\nthe tornado, whenever it may have occurred, could have exhibited no such\ndiscriminating freak as alternately to distribute acorns in pine\ngrowths, and pine cones in oak growths, either to make good a scientific\ntheory or balk an unscientific one.\n\nProfessor Agassiz, in passing through a dense young spruce forest some\nyears ago, on the south shore of Lake Superior, noticed that the ground\nwas thickly strewn with fallen birch trunks, showing that their place had\nbeen but recently usurped by the spruce; and he supposed that the birch\nhad first succumbed to the force of the winds, and the spruce promptly\ntaken its place, since, as a general rule, an evergreen growth succeeds a\ndeciduous, and _vice versa._ We have any number of well authenticated\nfacts similar to this stated by Professor Agassiz, but we cannot give\nplace to them, in this connection, without greatly exceeding our limits.\n\nDr. Franklin B. Hough, in his recent \"Report upon American Forestry,\" to\nwhich we have already referred, says: \"It is not unusual to observe in the\nswamps of the northern states, an alternation of growth taking place\nwithout human agency. Extensive tracts of tamarack (_Larix Americana_) may\nbe seen in northern Wisconsin that are dying out, and being succeeded by\nthe balsam fir (_Abies balsamea_), which may be probably caused by the\npartial drainage of the swamps, from the decay or removal of a fallen tree\nthat had obstructed the outlet.\" The writer of this work resided for a\nperiod of ten years or more in Wisconsin, and during that time traversed\nextensive portions of its territory, both before and after it became a\nstate. As early as 1844, the extensive tamarack swamps of that region were\nmanifestly dying out for the want of the proper nutritious elements in the\nsoil, and the balsam fir rapidly taking its place, especially where the\naccumulations of soil, resulting from decayed vegetation, were favorable\nfor its appearance. The drainage of the swamps had not been thought of at\nthat time, nor had the swamps themselves been disposed of, to any\nconsiderable extent, by the federal government. They were subsequently\ngranted to the state for educational purposes, and afterwards purchased up\nin the interest of speculative parties.\n\nBut the decay of the tamarack had really commenced long before population\nfound its way, in any considerable numbers, into that section of the\ncountry; and the balsam fir had begun its usurpation, in many of the\nswamps, long prior to the advent there of the white man. Neither\nartificial drainage, nor accidental drainage, had anything to do with the\nappearance of the balsam fir, or the disappearance of the tamarack. The\nlatter was manifestly dying out for the want of the proper nutriment, and\nthe former coming in for the reason that the soil was chemically balanced\nfor the development of its \"primordial germs\"--those everywhere implanted\nin the earth, to await the necessary conditions for their development and\ngrowth. The natural seeds of this balsam fir were not present in either\nthe first, second, or third tamarack swamp in which this alternation of\ngrowth originally took place. The change commenced as soon as conditions\nfavored, and not before. It is safe to say that, in none of these tamarack\nswamps, was there a single balsam fir cone, or a single chit to a cone,\nnor had there probably been for thousands of years, before the time when\nthe first balsam fir made its appearance in that section. They came, as\nall primordial forests come, from germs, not from the seeds of trees.\nUniversally, the germ precedes the tree, as the tree precedes the seed, in\nall vegetal growths, from the lowest cryptogam to the lordliest conifer of\nthe Pacific slope. Otherwise, we should be logically driven back to an act\nof \"specific creation,\" which the materialist stoutly rejects, and the\nBible genesis nowhere affirms.\n\nMr. George B. Emerson, in his valuable work on the \"Trees and Shrubs of\nMassachusetts,\" suggests as a cause (undoubtedly the true one) for the\ndying out of old forests, \"the exhaustion of the nutritious elements of\nthe soil required for their vigorous and successful growth.\" But he is\nevidently at fault in his speculations as to the alternations of forest\ngrowths. The Cretan labyrinth that everywhere confronts him is the\n\"seed-theory,\" which is so inextricable to him that he constantly\nstumbles, as one scientifically blind, yet eager to lead the blind. All\nthe phenomenal facts with which he deals admirably fit into the Bible\ngenesis, but he fails to see it because the sublime truth (with him) lies\nlocked up in an unmeaning translation. He is indefatigable, however, in\nhis hunt after seeds where there are no seeds, and in his jumps at\nconclusions where there are manifestly no data to justify them.\n\nHe says: \"Nature points out in various ways, and the observation of\npractical men has almost uniformly confirmed the conclusion to which the\nphilosophical botanist has come from theoretical considerations, that a\nrotation of crops is as important in the forests as in the cultivated\nfields.\" And he supplements this statement (measurably a true one) by\nadding that \"a pine forest is often, without the agency of man, succeeded\nby an oak forest, _where there were a few oaks previously scattered\nthrough the woods to furnish seed._\" This is a very cautious, as well as\ncircumspect, statement; but one that Mr. Emerson would not have made, had\nhis experience and observation been that of Professor Agassiz, Professor\nMarsh, and others we might name. His few oaks previously scattered through\nthe woods are no doubt among the \"theoretical considerations\" taken into\naccount by him, as a philosophical botanist rather than a practical one.\nThey were necessary for the extreme caution with which he would state a\nproposition when its \"conditioning facts\" were not fully known by him. His\nanxiety to account for the appearance of an oak forest in the place of a\npine, where the latter had been cut off, was commendable enough to justify\nhim in a pretty broad supposition, but not in any such general statement\nas he here makes. Had he consulted any of the older inhabitants of\nWestford, Littleton, and adjoining towns, in his own state, he would have\nfound that not a few oak forests had succeeded the pine without the\nintervention of \"scattered oaks,\" or even scattered acorns, in the\nlocalities named. Nor would his \"squirrel-theory\" of distribution have\nbeen very confidently adhered to, fifty years ago, in localties where the\nshagbark walnut was almost as abundant as the white oak itself. No\nsquirrel will gather acorns where he can possibly get hickory nuts, and\nfew will gather hickory nuts where the larger and thinner-shelled walnuts\nare to be had for the picking. The squirrel is provident, but no more so\nthan he is fastidious in the choice of his food. He never plants acorns\nexcept for his own gratification, and is never gratified with indifferent\nfood so long as he can command that which is to his liking.\n\nIn further speaking of the \"exhausted elements\" of the soil--those\nnecessary for the food of trees as well as plants, and without which they\ninevitably perish and disappear--Mr. Emerson says; \"This is clearly\nindicated in what is constantly going on in the forests, particularly the\nfact which I have already stated, and which is abundantly confirmed by my\ncorrespondents, that a forest of one kind is frequently succeeded _by a\nspontaneous growth of trees of another kind._\" In the sense in which he\nmanifestly uses the term \"spontaneous\" in this connection, his new forest\nmight be accounted for on the theory of \"primordial germs,\" but not on\nthat of \"seeds;\" for few trees or shrubs in Massachusetts bear winged\nseeds, or possess any other means of dispersion (the _Acer_ family\nexcepted) than those common to our general forest growths. Spontaneity, in\na strictly scientific sense, is not predicable upon the artificial or\nchance sowing of either acorns, hickory nuts, or the chits to pine cones.\nA spontaneous growth implies a process which is neither usual nor\naccidental--a growth without external cause, but from inherent natural\ntendency--and it is questionable whether there is any such process in\nnature. It belongs to the same class of idle speculations as \"spontaneous\ngeneration\" in the infusorial world--a subject that will be considered as\nwe advance in this work.\n\nOur vegetable physiologists, Mr. Emerson among the number, are simply\nunfortunate in their use of terms--those expressing even the commonest\noperations of nature. In their genesis of plants and trees they need to\nadhere a little more closely to the genesis of induction, and use language\nin harmony with the phenomenal facts and characteristics which they are\ncalled upon to explain. But Mr. Emerson was not alone at fault in this\nalmost universal slip of the scientific pen. He quotes from a letter of\nMr. P. Sanderson, of East Whately, Mass., in which the writer says: \"There\nis an instance on my farm of spruce and hackmatack being succeeded by a\nspontaneous growth of maple wood;\" and he adds that \"instances are also\nmentioned by him (Mr. Sanderson) of beech and maple succeeding oaks; oaks\nfollowing pines, and the reverse; hemlock succeeded by white birch in cold\nplaces, and by hard maple in warm ones; beech succeeded by maple, elm,\netc; and, in fact, the occurrence was so common that surprise was\nexpressed at the asking of the question.\"\n\nThese several alternations in timber growths, effectually vouched for by\nMr. Emerson, occurring \"spontaneously\" as stated, can hardly be accounted\nfor on any other theory than the presence of \"germs\" and \"favoring\nconditions,\" such as we have named in connection with the Bible genesis.\nThey might possibly be explained on the theory of \"scattered seeds,\" if\nthe several growths had made their appearance gradually, and not\n\"spontaneously,\" as stated. The misfortune with Mr. Emerson, as well as\nwith his several \"reliable correspondents,\" was, that his facts are too\nmeagrely imparted, in the necessary details, to draw any satisfactory\nconclusions from them--such as the nearness or distance of surrounding\ntrees of the same species, and the possible chances of their seeds taking\nlodgment in the soil from which they grew. But, fortunately, there are\nfacts, and those abundantly substantiated, which entirely negative the\npresence of seeds in the soils where these \"spontaneous growths\" are said\nto have appeared. In some instances, they cover large tracts of land, at\ndistances of thirty, forty, fifty, and even hundreds of miles, from any\nnative forest from which seed could have been derived.\n\nDr. Dwight, in the second volume of his \"Travels,\" mentions visiting a\ntown in Vermont (Panton, near Vergennes), in which a piece of land that\nhad been once cultivated, but was afterwards permitted to lie waste,\n\"yielded a thick and vigorous growth of hickory, _where there was not a\nsingle hickory tree in any original forest within fifty miles of the\nplace_.\" Of this piece of land he says: \"The native growth here was white\npine, of which I did not see a single stem in the whole grove of hickory.\"\nHe is greatly puzzled to account for this isolated growth of hickory, but\nreadily concludes that \"the fruit was too heavy to be carried fifty miles\nby birds; besides\" he adds, \"it is not eaten by any bird indigenous to\nVermont.\" And even if the birds had carried the nuts thither, not one of\nthem could have been planted there unless the nut-eating bird had been\ncaught and destroyed on the spot, and the nut released from its crop. This\nmight account for the appearance of a single tree, but not for a \"whole\ngrove of hickory;\" and the squirrels certainly could not have been\nprovident enough to plant any considerable grove in this particular\nlocality, and nowhere else within fifty miles of it. The winds could not\nhave borne them that distance without dropping a single nut by the way,\nand there is only one supposition left, which is that indicated in the\nBible genesis.\n\nWhile Dr. Dwight emphatically rejects the \"transportation theory,\" he\nimagined he had solved the difficulty in his suggestion \"that the\ncultivation of the land had brought up the seeds of a former forest,\nwithin the limits of vegetation, and given them an opportunity to\nvegetate.\" But the utter absurdity of this theory may be demonstrated by\nany one inside of two years, by placing hickory nuts, in different soils,\nat a depth to which an ordinary plough-point would reach in cultivation;\nand then, at the end of the second year, examining those that did not\ngerminate the first year. The commonest observer of a hickory forest knows\nthat if the fallen nuts do not germinate the first year, their vitality is\nutterly and hopelessly gone. It makes no difference whether you leave the\nnuts on the ground where they fall, or place them one inch or twenty\ninches beneath the soil, the result will be the same. At the end of two\nyears, you can pulverize them between thumb and finger almost as easily as\nso much dried loam. The idea of deriving a new forest from such nuts, is\nhardly less absurd than that of emptying the Egyptian catacombs of their\nold mummy-cases, in the expectation of seeing a race of Theban kings\nstalking the earth as before the foundations of either Carthage or Rome\nwere laid.\n\nDr. Dwight was a very close and accurate observer of nature, and suffered\nfew of even the minor points of detail to escape him. In the same work, as\nwell as in the same connection, he gives an account of another forest,\nwhich he supposes sprang spontaneously from \"the seeds of an ancient\nvegetation.\" He says: \"A field about five miles from Northampton (Mass.),\non an eminence called 'Rail Hill,' was cultivated about a century ago\n(_circiter_ 1720). The native growth here, and in all the surrounding\nregion, was wholly oak, chestnut, etc. As the field belonged to my\ngrandfather, I had the best opportunity of learning its history. It\ncontained about five acres, in the form of an irregular parallelogram. As\nthe savages rendered the cultivation dangerous, it was given up. On this\nground there sprang up a grove of white pines, covering the field and\nretaining its figure exactly. So far as I remember, there was not in it a\nsingle oak or chestnut tree;\" and he adds, \"_there was not a single pine\nwhose seeds were, or, probably, had for ages been, sufficiently near to\nhave been planted on this spot_.\" He supposes, however, that the \"seeds\"\n(pine cone chits) had lain dormant for ages before cultivation brought\nthem up \"within the limits of vegetation.\"\n\nAs early as 1807, Judge Peters, of Philadelphia, became satisfied that all\nthat elevated region around the head waters of the Delaware, Alleghany,\nand Genesee Rivers, then covered with heavy growths of hemlock, or with\nforests of beech and sugar-maple, was originally an oak forest, probably\ncovering most of that entire region. And Mr. John Adlum, of Havre de\nGrace, Md., who originally surveyed the lands south of the great bend of\nthe Susquehanna, between that river and the Delaware, conceived the same\nidea as early as 1788. The section surveyed by him was chiefly covered\nwith beech and sugar-maple; in fact, it was in what was called, at the\ntime, \"the beech and sugar-maple country.\" He drew his inferences from the\nfact that he found, here and there, at irregular intervals, red and white\noaks growing to an enormous size, none being less than sixteen feet, and\nmany measuring twenty-two feet or more, in circumference five feet above\nthe ground. He says that \"the hemlock in this region seems to have\nsucceeded the oak, while the beech and maple no doubt succeeded the\nhemlock.\" This last inference would seem to have been made from the fact\nthat clumps of large hemlock trees were, at that time, still growing at\nintervals among the larger deciduous trees.\n\nIndeed, there is no better established fact in vegetable physiology than\nthat of these alternations of forest growths. They sometimes come on\ngradually, but, in a majority of instances, they make their appearance at\nonce on the cutting off of old forests, in the tracks of tornadoes, or\nwhere fire has devastated extensive regions of timber. From the facts\nwhich have been gathered, it is difficult to determine any regular order\nof alternation, except that oaks and other deciduous trees succeed the\ndifferent varieties of pine and other evergreen growths, and, perhaps,\n_vice versa_. In Dr. Hough's report upon American Forestry, he makes a\nbrief summary of the order of these alternations in different sections of\nthe country, on the authority of persons apparently more or less\nwell-informed on the subject, but by no means accurate observers. He says\nthat in the region about Green Bay, Wis., overrun by the fires of 1871,\n\"dense growths of poplars and birches have sprung up, and are growing\nrapidly;\" but he omits the most important fact of all, in his failure to\nstate the previous growths of timber, or whether there were any\nneighboring growths of poplar along the track of the burnt district from\nwhich seed might have been derived.\n\nHere are some of his more important statements:--\n\n\"At Clarksville, Ga., oak and hickory lands, when cleared, invariably grew\nup with pine. This is true of that region of country generally.\"\n\n\"At Aiken, S.C., the long-leaf pine is succeeded by oaks and other\ndeciduous trees, and _vice versa_.\"\n\n\"In Bristol County, Mass., in some cases, after pines have been cut off,\noak, maple, and birch have sprung up abundantly.\"\n\n\"In Hancock County, Ill., oaks have been succeeded by hickories.\"\n\n\"In East Hamburgh, Erie County, N.Y., a growth of hemlock, elm, and soft\nmaple, was succeeded by beech, soft maple, and hard maple, but a good deal\nmore of the last named than any other.\"\n\nThis is the general character of the summary given, and if its object were\nsimply to show the fact that these alternations actually took place (one\nthat nobody has disputed in the last half century), his chapter on the\n\"Alternations of Forest Growths,\" is a scientific success. The information\nreally desired in these cases, was that imparted by Dr. Dwight in his\nsuggestive work of travel, in which all the incidental facts and\nsurrounding circumstances are fully given. It does not appear from any of\nthe foregoing statements, given as a specimen, that there were any\nneighboring trees sufficiently near to have supplied seed for the new\nforests taking the place of the old,--manifestly the most important\nphysiological fact connected with the whole inquiry, whether looking to\nproper forest-management, or to future \"schools of forestry,\" certain to\nbe established in this country, as they have been in most of the leading\ncountries of Europe.\n\nIt is, however, stated by Dr. Hough, in his voluminous report, that, \"in\nNew England, the pine (without giving its varieties) is often succeeded by\nthe white birch, and, in New Jersey, by the oak; the succession of oak by\npine, and the reverse, in the southern states.\" And it is further stated,\nwithout reference to the nature and quality of the different soils, or the\nabsence or presence of neighboring seed-trees, that \"poplars and other\nsoft woods are very often found coming up in pine districts that have been\nravaged by fire.\" \"We have noticed,\" he continues, \"in Nebraska, ash, elm,\nand box-elder following cottonwood. In the natural starting of timber in\nthe prairie region of Illinois, where the stopping of fires allowed, we\noften see a hazel coppice; after a time the crat\u00e6gus, and finally the\noaks, black-walnuts, and other timber. These growths are often quite\naggressive on the prairies. In Florida, the black-jack oak usually takes\nthe place of the long-leaf pine.\" In all these cases, the contiguousness\nof similar, or dissimilar growths, is not stated.\n\nHe nevertheless cites a most important fact respecting the alternations of\ntimber growth, noticed by Sir Alexander Mackenzie, in his overland journey\nfrom Montreal to the Arctic Ocean, in 1789, who found, in the vicinity of\nSlave Lake, that the banks were covered with large quantities of burnt\nwood lying on the ground, where young poplar trees had sprung up\nimmediately after the destruction of the previous growths by fire. In\nnoticing this fact, the indefatigable English explorer remarks: \"It is a\nvery curious and extraordinary circumstance that land covered with spruce,\npine, and white birch, when laid waste by fire, should subsequently\nproduce nothing but poplars, _where none of that species of tree was\npreviously to be found\"_. But facts of a similar character are too\nnumerous and well-authenticated to be questioned by any intelligent\nauthority. And they all point to but one solution--that of primordial\ngerms quickened into life by the necessary environing conditions. The\nappearance of a single poplar in the locality named, or even a dozen of\nthem for that matter, might be accounted for on the theory that a bird of\npassage had dropped them there after the fire; but, under no conceivable\ncircumstances, could the dispersion of the requisite amount of seed to\nplant an extensive burnt district, along the banks of Slave Lake, have\noccurred on any other theory than that emphatically set forth, as a\nphysiological fact, in the Bible genesis.\n\nThere is manifestly importance enough attaching to this subject to justify\na much wider range of observation and inquiry than has yet been made. Pine\nforests have been cut off in Alabama and Georgia, covering extensive\nareas, where there was not a single oak tree in a circuit of miles; and\nyet the oak has promptly made its appearance, in several varieties, over\nthe whole cleared district. And it is entirely safe to say that, had the\nground been thoroughly examined, from the surface to ten feet below it,\nafter the pine had been felled, not the first sign of an acorn could have\nbeen met with anywhere within the whole area of the clearing, no matter\nwhether it covered ten acres, twenty, or a hundred. The paths of the\ntornadoes we have referred to conclusively show this. The new-born\nforests, in these cases, do not come from seed, but from the living,\nindestructible, vital principles implanted in the earth, before it was\nspecifically commanded to \"bring forth,\" in the language of the Bible\ngenesis. The \"materialists,\" like Professor Bastian, Herbert Spencer, and\nothers, may sneer at this declaration, but let them advance some rational\ntheory to the contrary, to account for these alternations of forest\ngrowths, before they lay bare the joints of their scientific armor too\nconfidently to the thrusts of the next new-comer in the field of\nscientific investigation. Sneers are cheap weapons--the mere side-arms of\npretension and frippery--but they never bear so deadly a gibe as when\neffectually turned on the sneerer.\n\nProfessor Moritz Wagner, in his description of Mount Ararat, mentions \"a\nsingular phenomenon,\" to which his guide drew his attention, \"in the\nappearance of several plants on soil lately thrown up by an earthquake,\nwhich grew nowhere else on the mountain, and had never been observed in\nthis (that) region before.\" This writer, thereupon, goes into a\ndisquisition upon the vitality of long-buried seeds, but only to mar the\nvalue of his very important observation. The fact that these new plants\nwere rejected by the other soil of the mountain--that not thrown up by the\nearthquake--is the only other observation of value made by this writer.\nAnd the importance of this one observation lies in the apparent, if not\nconclusive fact, that the conditions of the other soil of the mountain\nwere not favorable for the development of the primordial germs, or vital\nunits, contained in that which was thrown up by the earthquake, a\ncircumstance that most materially strengthens the view we have taken, as\nall candid and impartial readers will agree.\n\nMr. Darwin inadvertently makes a very material concession in favor of the\ntheory we have advanced, although unconscious of any such theory, except\nthat so broadly and unqualifiedly put forth by the \"panspermists\" as to\nmeet with a ready refutation. He is laboring, of course, to strengthen his\nposition that nature eternally works to get rid of her imperfect forms, or\nto ensure \"the survival of the fittest.\" But while his facts accomplish\nlittle in this direction, they establish much in another, as the reader\nwill see. He says: \"In Staffordshire, on an estate of a relative, where I\nhad ample means of investigation, there was a large and extremely barren\nheath, which had never been touched by the hand of man; but several\nhundred acres of exactly the same nature had been enclosed twenty-five\nyears before, and planted with scotch fir. The change in the native\nvegetation of the planted part of the heath was most remarkable--more than\nis generally seen in passing from one quite different soil to another; not\nonly the proportional numbers of the heath plants were wholly changed,\n_but twelve species of plants _ (not including grasses and sedges)\nflourished in the plantation which could not be found on the heath.\"\n\nThe attempt is here made, by Mr. Darwin, to convey an altogether different\nmeaning to his facts than what they will warrant, even as adroitly handled\nby him. No heath plants were \"wholly changed\" in characteristics, but only\nin proportional numbers; nor did the \"twelve new species of plants\" make\ntheir appearance by virtue of any law of variability or selection of the\nfittest. The growth of scotch fir had simply changed the conditions of the\nsoil, so that certain varieties of heath growth disappeared for the want\nof \"necessary conditions,\" and certain varieties of forest growth made\ntheir appearance because conditions favored. Similar, if not greater\nchanges, are constantly occurring in hundreds of localities in New\nEngland, where choked and worn-out pasture lands are left, untouched by\nthe hand of man, to grow up as best they may into new forests. The\nopen-field plants and shrubs entirely disappear, as the stronger and more\naggressive trees, taking root in favoring soils, advance in the struggle\nfor supremacy, while the less hardy and more modest plants--those quietly\nseeking shelter in the woods--make their appearance, because they find,\nbeneath the shade of the usurping forest, the precise conditions necessary\nfor their more successful growth.\n\nNo perishable seeds have been awakened from their \"sleep of untold\ncenturies\" by these changed conditions of the soil; but nature, everywhere\nobeying the divine mandate, brings forth her implanted life in all its\nbountiful diversity of stalk, leaf, bud, bough, blossom, fruit,--not in\nobedience to man's husbandry alone, but because, as the \"vicar of God,\"\nshe must provide for her benefice. \"Let the earth bring forth\" is the\neternal fiat. Nature forever heeds it, and forever obeys it. \"Oh, ye blind\nguides, who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, doubt it if ye will.\" But\nforget not that nature has her \"compunctious visitings,\" and will rise up\nin insurrection against you. Nothing in her breast lies dormant for ages,\nor even for an hour. Her appointed times and seasons forbid it. If the\nbutterfly does not sport in her sunshine to-day, it is because it lies\ndead in its golden-colored shroud, and can never become a butterfly. In\nall her profusion and prodigality--flinging her glittering jewels, even in\nmid-winter, over all her enamored woods, and causing her little fountains\nto leap up from their crystal beds in delight, that they may be frozen,\nmid-air, into more sparkling jets--she exhibits no such munificence as in\nher unsparing prodigality of life. To be prodigal in this was the first\ncommand she received, and her great heart constantly throbs to give it\nexpression. And in all this she simply obeys a kindly law which has been\nimplanted in her bosom, and can never be displanted. She has no need of\nseeds in her cunning laboratory to perpetuate plant-life, and only yields\nthem to man for use, and not abuse. He can utilize them if he will, so\nthat all things of beauty and golden-fruited promise shall be his. In the\nlanguage of her greatest and most profoundly philosophical poet,--\n\n      \"Nature never lends\n  The smallest scruple of her excellence,\n  But, like a thrifty goddess, she determines\n  Herself the glory of a creditor--\n  _Both thanks and use_.\"\n\nThose who think, therefore, to make nature a debtor, by reversing her laws\nof propagation and making her dependent on what she bestows in use, will\nnever find out the smallest scruple of her excellence, nor add to her\nglory as a creditor. All things are framed in her prodigality, and the\nseeds of plants and trees are no exception to the quality of her\nbestowals. We may reason, syllogize, speculate as we will, the first plant\nand the first tree were not nature's thankless bastards, but her\nlegitimate and loving offspring. She engendered them in her own fruitful\nbreast, and her \"copy is eterne.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nThe Distribution and Vitality of Seeds.\n\n\n\nFew questions have attracted more attention among vegetable physiologists,\nof late years, than the dispersion and migration of seeds from place to\nplace in the earth, and it is safe to say that none has been more\nunsatisfactorily answered. In the case of quite a number of plants and\ntrees, special contrivances would seem to have been provided by nature for\ninsuring their dispersion, as well as migration. With a small number of\nplants, for instance, the seeds are discharged for short distances by the\nexplosive force of their seed-vessels, when properly matured; an equally\nsmall number have certain membranous contrivances, called \"wings,\" by\nwhich they may be borne still greater distances; others, again, are\nprovided with light feathery tufts, to which the seed is attached, and\nthese may be carried by the winds several miles before finding a lodgment\nin the soil; while many others are inclosed in prickly and barb-pointed\ncoverings by which they attach themselves to animals, and even birds, and\nmay be transported to almost any distance. But with the great majority of\nplants and trees, as the seeds fall so they lie, and must continue to lie\nuntil they either germinate or perish, or are accidentally dispersed or\nscattered by some extrinsic agency. The anxiety of speculative botanists\nto account for the recognized alternations of forest and other growths,\nhave led to the different theories of transportation we have named; and\nwhen these theories have been supplemented by the alleged wonderful\nvitality of seeds, in the cunning recesses in which nature manages to\nconceal them, they imagine the whole difficulty solved, when, in point of\nfact, it remains wholly unsolved.\n\nThis theory of the \"wonderful vitality\" of seeds is simply one, as we\nhave said, to force a conclusion--to get rid of a lion in the scientific\npath. Professor Marsh, with other eminent and scholarly writers on\nvegetable physiology, scouts the idea that the seeds of some of our\ncereal crops have been preserved for three or four thousand years in the\n\"ashy dryness\" of the Egyptian catacombs. But what better repository in\nwhich to preserve them? Certainly, none of our modern granaries, with all\ntheir machinery for keeping the grain dry, or from over-heating. Nor are\nthe catacombs to be despised, as compared with any out-door means of\nstorage yet suggested by the wit of man. The only means nature has of\nstorage, or rather of preservation by storage, is to welcome the seed\nback to her bosom--the earth from which its parent-seed sprang--where it\nmay be speedily quickened into life, and bear \"other grain,\" not itself.\nFor \"that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die;\" and much\nmore is that dead which is not quickened. Whenever seed is thus returned\nto nature's bosom--all-palpitating as it is with life--whether it\nquickens or not, it dies; and there is no resurrection for dead seed from\nthe earth, any more than there is for the occupants of the exhumed\nmummy-cases of ancient Thebes.\n\nThe belief in this wonderful vitality of seeds, in the positions in which\nnature deposits them, is pretty much on a par with that which assigns a\nthousand years to the life of a crow. As nobody but the scholastic fool in\nthe fable has ever attempted to verify the correctness of this latter\nbelief, so it is safe to assume that the experiment of verifying the\nformer will not be successfully undertaken within the next thousand years,\nto say the least. It is well known that the vitality of seeds (so far, at\nleast, as nature handles them) depends, upon her cunning contrivances for\ntheir preservation, as well as their dispersion. But many seeds, in which\nthese contrivances would seem to be the most perfect, will not germinate\nafter the second year, and few will do so to advantage after the third or\nfourth year, even when they have been kept under the most favorable\ncircumstances, or in uniform dryness and temperature. Farmers, who have\nhad practical experience in this matter, and care little for what is\nmerely theoretical, will never plant seed that is three or four years old\nwhen they can get that of the previous year's growth. It is certain that\nno hickory nut will retain its vitality beyond the first year of its\nexposure to a New England soil and climate, and few seeds are better\nprotected by nature against such exposure; and it is equally questionable\nwhether the chits to Dr. Dwight's pine cones would have had any better\nchance of survival at the time the Indians infested the neighborhood of\nNorthampton, and regularly fired the woods every autumn.\n\nAlthough Professor Marsh confidently says, in his work on. \"Man and\nNature,\" that \"the vitality of seeds seems almost imperishable while they\nremain in the situations in which nature deposits them,\" he will no doubt\nadmit that this statement rests on no experimental knowledge, but simply\non the hypothesis that the new forests and new species of plants to which\nhe refers, originated from seeds, and not from primordial germs everywhere\nimplanted in the earth. Dr. G. Chaplin Child, who swallows the \"Egyptian\nwheat\" story, mummy-cases and all, in speaking of some of the English\n\"dykes\" or mound-fences which have existed from time well-nigh immemorial,\nsays: \"No sooner are these dykes leveled than the seeds of wild flowers,\nwhich must have lain in them for ages, sprout forth vigorously, just as if\nthe ground had been recently sown with seed.\" He also mentions, as a more\nor less remarkable fact, \"that a house, which was known to have existed\nfor two hundred years, was pulled down, and, no sooner was the surface soil\nexposed to the influence of light and moisture, than it became covered\nwith a crop of wild-mustard or charlock.\" And he instances these facts to\nshow that the seeds of this charlock, and these dyke plants, had lain\ndormant in the soil from the time the dykes were built, and the house\nerected. But these physiological facts, however well authenticated they\nmay have been, are no more conclusive of the presence of dormant seed,\nthan the appearance of the common plantain about a recently built\ndwelling-house, where none ever grew before, is proof that the seeds of\nthis common household plant had lain dormant for ages before the house was\nerected. We cannot tell why this common plant follows the domestic\nhousehold, any more than we can tell why rats follow civilization. But\nthey are both sufficiently annoying at times, to satisfy us that they _do_\nfollow, however inexplicable the reason may be.\n\nThe same writer further says, in connection with the foregoing statements:\n\"Instances (of the vitality of seeds) might easily be multiplied almost\nindefinitely, but we shall be satisfied with noticing one of a very\nextraordinary kind. In the time of the Emperor Hadrian, a man died soon\nafter he had eaten plentifully of raspberries. He was buried at\nDorchester. About twenty-eight years ago, the remains of this man,\ntogether with coins of the Roman Emperor, were discovered in a coffin (!)\nat the bottom of a barrow, thirty feet under the surface. The man had thus\nlain undisturbed for some 1700 years. But the most curious circumstance\nconnected with the case was, that _the raspberry seeds were recovered from\nthe stomach_ (!) and sown in the garden of the Horticultural Society,\nwhere they germinated and grew into healthy bushes,\" Here is\ncircumstantiality enough to satisfy the most unlimited skepticism,\nprovided that the facts were satisfactorily vouched for by the living, and\nthe record left by the dead were sufficiently explicit in detail, and\nconclusive in identity of subject. Then to suggest even a reasonable doubt\nwould, we admit, be equivalent to making truth a circumstantial liar.\n\nBut this most remarkable story will bear repetition, with a few running\ncomments. \"The man (presumably a Roman soldier) died seventeen hundred\nyears ago.\" This is not unlikely. \"He died of eating too plentifully of\nraspberries;\" a circumstance not altogether improbable. \"He was buried at\nDorchester;\" where, of course, there were no records of deaths and burials\nkept at the time, and hence, we should have to question the record, if one\nwere presented. \"He was also buried in a coffin, or, at least, dug up in\none.\" This statement must be received _cum grano_. The Romans never used\ncoffins, and, under the empire, they burnt most of their dead. After a\nbattle, however, they generally piled them up in heaps, and, where there\nwas a lack of fuel to burn them, they covered them with the surface soil,\ntaking good care to put a Roman coin in each soldier's mouth, so that he\nmight pay the ferryman in Hades. \"There was thirty-five feet of surface\nsoil shoveled on top of this particular Roman,\"--showing that he was a\nvery consequential personage in camp. No wonder, then, that all these nice\nparticularities of statement should have been circumstantially noted in\nthe commanding general's \"order of the day,\" and thus been handed down to\nposterity for the future advancement of science! \"He had lain undisturbed\nfor nearly two thousand years.\" Almost any one would have done so, with\nthat amount of surface soil shoveled on top of him. \"The seeds were\nrecovered from his stomach;\" that is, after improvidently snatching away\nthe Roman soldier's life, they took good care to preserve their own, as\nwell as the stomach in which they were deposited. \"The seeds were planted\nin the Horticultural Society's garden, where they flourished vigorously.\"\n\nAll these circumstantially narrated facts (?) were gathered (by somebody)\nabout forty years ago. In what authentic and satisfactorily verified\nrecord are they to be found to-day? The writer gives us no clue. The\nstomach, the coffin, the Roman coins, some of the wonderfully preserved\nseeds, as well as the _obolus_ in the mouth of the dead soldier, should be\nfound somewhere. They could not have disappeared in a night. If they had\nwithstood the relentless tooth of time for seventeen hundred years, in the\nsurface soil of Dorchester, the last forty years ought not to have\nobliterated all trace of them. The story is simply too incredible for\nbelief, if printed in forty \"Great Architects of Nature.\"\n\nFrom 1847 to 1851, the writer went into any number of Wisconsin\nmounds--those not essentially dissimilar from the Roman barrows in\nEngland--in company with the late I. A. Lapham, of Milwaukee; and the idea\nof finding any human stomach, with or without seeds in it--with probably\nnot half the time intervening between burial and exhumation, as in the\ncase of this Roman soldier--would have been instantly rejected by the\ndistinguished archaeologist accompanying us. Indeed, had any such\ndiscovery been made, he would have unhesitatingly pronounced the mound\ntampered with for the purposes of imposition. It is possible that surface\nsoil, containing some raspberry seeds, may have been taken to the\n\"Horticultural Society's garden\" to which Dr. Child refers, and planted\nthere as stated; but that they were from a human stomach that had lain\nburied for seventeen hundred years in the surface soil of England, or any\nother country, is simply preposterous. It caps the climax of all the\nwonderful \"seed-stories\" yet manufactured for the scientific mind to\nwrestle with. It is easy enough to find soil about old stumps, and fallen\ntrunks and branches of trees, which will produce raspberries, either with\nor without the presence of seed. And soil might have been taken from the\nbottom of this Dorchester barrow which produced them. But the appearance\nof the bushes must have depended on the conditions of the soil, not on\nseeds eaten by a Roman soldier nearly two thousand years ago. That version\nof the story must be summarily dismissed the attention of scientific men.\n\nProfessor Marsh, in the work to which we have already several times\nalluded, says: \"When newly cleared ground is burnt over in the United\nStates, the ashes are hardly cold before they are covered with a crop of\nfire-weed, a tall herbaceous plant, very seldom growing under other\ncircumstances, and often not to be found for a distance of many miles from\nthe clearing.\" The botanical name of this plant is _Erechthites\nhieracifolia_, and it is well known to the botanists of New England. Its\nseeds are almost as destructible by fire as thistle-down itself; and it is\nnot to be supposed that any of the seeds borne by the winds or by birds,\nand scattered through the clearing before it was burned, could have\nsurvived the intense heat to which they must have been subjected in the\nburning off of a heavy and dense growth of felled timber. The seeds, if\nany, must have been scattered after the fire, and not before it. But these\nheavy clearings--those in which we have witnessed the most abundant crops\nof fire-weed--are generally burnt off in the early spring, when there are\nno seeds to be scattered, as all those of the previous year's growth find\ntheir proper lodgment in the soil before the winter fully closes in. The\nseeds for which Professor Marsh would have to search, therefore, would be\nthose _grown in some corresponding latitude, or plant zone, in the\nsouthern hemisphere_, not within thousands of miles from the clearing in\nwhich they so promptly make their appearance.\n\nProfessor Marsh suggests, however, that they may have come from \"the\ndeeply buried seeds of a former vegetation, quickened into life by the\nheat.\" But had he examined these plants, in their incipient stages of\ngrowth, he would have found that they sprung directly from the surface of\nthe burnt soil, their initial rootlets hardly extending to the depth of\ntwo-thirds of an inch below it, and where they must have utterly perished\nfrom the heat. The theory he suggests is the only possible one, he thinks,\nto account for the mystery, and hence its suggestion by him. But he has\nonly to pass one of the delicate seeds of this plant through the flame of\na candle to see that it instantly perishes by fire. His suggested theory\nmust be abandoned, therefore, and that of the Bible genesis accepted in\nits place.\n\nThe fact is, and it ought to be well known to the closer student of\nnature, that the fire-weed makes its appearance in the \"conditions\" of\nthe burnt soil, just as stramonium does in the conditions of the soil\nwhere a coal-pit has been recently burned; that is, not from seed, but\nfrom \"vital units,\" or germs, everywhere present in the earth--those\ntaking advantage of environing conditions, just as _Bacteria_ or\n_Torultz_ spring from the proper organic infusions. And the young shoots\nof stramonium, in a recently burned coal-pit, will be found to spring\ndirectly from the surface of the burnt ground, where all seeds and living\norganism must have perished in the heat, and not at any considerable\ndepth below it. Their first appearance is on the immediate surface of the\nburnt ground, the same as in the case of fire-weed, and at a time when\nthere were no seeds to be distributed, except such as must have come from\nthe southern hemisphere, or been casually picked up by birds, and taken\ntheir slim chances of survival after passing through the natural\n\"gristmills\" of the birds. And even this supposition, would only account\nfor the appearance of a single stramonium plant or two, not for a thick\nbed of it covering the entire ground. The theory of seed-distribution, in\nthis and other cases, is wholly out of the question; as much so as when\nwhite clover makes its appearance on a closely-grazed prairie, hundreds\nof miles away from where there has been a single sprig of clover growing\nin a thousand years. Every closely observant person, living for any\nlength of time on our western prairies, is familiar with the fact that\nwhen the rank and hardier grasses, usually growing thereon, are\neffectually fed down by stock, and especially by sheep, the prairie\ngrasses disappear, and the ground at once comes in with white clover, and\nthe other nutritious gramma or grasses of our common pasture lands. No\nseed has been sown in these localities, and none could have been found\nhad every square inch of the surface soil been examined by the most\npowerful microscope. The white clover and these nutritious grasses make\ntheir appearance on these prairies, just as the first sprig of vegetation\ndid on the earth, not from seed, but from pre\u00ebxisting vital units or\nprimordial germs, implanted therein from the beginning, and awaiting the\nnecessary conditions for their development and growth.\n\nThe \"bird theory\" is the one almost universally relied upon for the\nexplanation of these phenomena, where the seeds distributed, or supposed\nto be distributed, are not winged. But we are satisfied that birds perform\nno such important office, in the matter of seed-distribution, as is\ngenerally attributed to them. We have examined, during the past two\nseasons, a large number of bird-droppings, and find our previous\nimpressions respecting them fully verified. With all the more delicate\nseeds--those of our common field grasses and weeds--the chances are a\nthousand to one that none of them will ever pass the cloaca of the bird\neating them, in any condition to germinate. All seed-eating birds are also\ngravel-eaters; and the pebbles and gravel they eat are mostly silex, or\nthe material from which our best buhrstones are made. These pass into the\ngizzard, or pyloric division of the bird's stomach, where they are\nutilized, the same as we utilize our buhrstones. The gizzard has sharply\ncorrugated interior walls, extremely thick and muscular, which\ninvoluntarily contract and expand, giving the bird a tremendous grinding\npower over his food, considering the size of his grinding apparatus. The\nseeds--all the seeds, in fact, he eats--pass at once into his crop, or the\nnatural \"hopper\" to his \"gristmill,\" where they undergo a moistening or\nmacerating process previous to being ground into the finest pulp in the\ngizzard. As a general rule, all the seeds a bird eats are ground into this\npulpy state before they pass into the intestinal canal, extending from the\ngizzard to the cloaca. The hard, semi-translucent, and highly elastic\nouter coating of most small seeds, may be measurably preserved in its\npassage through the gizzard, and, resuming its oval shape in the thinner\npulpy mass contained in the upper portion of the intestine, present the\nappearance of seed in the cloacal discharges, and thus deceive the casual\nobserver. But the use of a spatula and a small piece of polished stone\nslab will show that the entire discharge is excrementitious matter, with\nthe single exception of this silicious coating of the seeds.\n\nThe case is different, however, with the fruit-eating birds. The fruits\nthey consume are retained but a comparatively short time in the crop, pass\nhurriedly through the gizzard, and no doubt carry along with them some of\nthe smaller seeds of berries, and now and then the pit of a cherry or\nsmall plum. The gizzard, in these cases, is simply gorged with the pulp\nand juices of the fruit, its muscular action more or less relaxed, and\nsome of the seeds consequently escape the grinding process they would\notherwise undergo. And yet we are satisfied that a majority of these seeds\neven, are more or less thoroughly triturated by a healthy gravel-eating\nbird. This would certainly be the case if they were retained for any\nlength of time in the pyloric division of the bird's stomach. All birds\nhave gizzards, but their grinding capacity depends very much on the\ncharacter of the food they eat. Birds of prey, and others subsisting\nmostly or entirely on animal food, have thin, membranous, and\ncomparatively flabby gizzards; while those living on hard grains and seeds\nhave extremely thick, powerful, and muscular ones,--those capable of\ncrushing up and thoroughly triturating all the food they take into their\ncrops. These gizzards are nature's gristmills, and they grind exceedingly\nfine. If any seed escapes, it is because the mill has been flooded by the\nbird, and not because of any defect in the grinding apparatus.\n\nThese birds are not, therefore \"natural sowers of seeds,\" as Professor\nMarsh and some others claim; but are, at most, only accidental or\nchance-sowers. Nature never designed that they should do anything more\nthan consume the food they eat, or submit it to the proper action of their\ndigestive organs. It might as well be claimed that the secretary bird is a\n\"natural sower of serpents,\" as that many of the grain-eating birds are\n\"the natural sowers of seeds.\" The theory is too foraminated--too full of\nloopholes and unsatisfactory conditions--to be accepted as an explanation\nof the more general phenomena presented. The fruit-eating quadrupeds are,\nrelatively, far better sowers of seeds than the birds, for they eat fruit\nwithout sending their grists to mill. Dr. Dwight rejected the\ntransportation theory as early as 1820, and Professor Marsh gives any\nnumber of cases where it was necessary for him to abandon it. And yet some\nof our ablest writers, publishing works of quite recent date, adhere to it\nas the only theory that accounts for all the phenomena presented.\n\nProfessor George Thurber, in speaking of the dissemination of seeds, finds\nother agencies therefor than winds, birds, quadrupeds, etc., such as we\nhave already named. For instance, he claims that rivers, ocean currents,\nmountain torrents, and even wars, contribute largely towards their\ndispersion and dissemination throughout different parts of the earth. All\nthis may be true to a limited extent; but none of these enumerated\nagencies will account for more than a very few of the many\nwell-authenticated facts we have given, and many others that might be\ngiven, if our limits permitted. Among the instances where wars have had,\nor are claimed to have had, an important agency in the distribution of\nseeds throughout an invaded country, he mentions the fact that \"after our\nlate civil war, a little leguminous plant (_Lespedeza striata_) sprang\nup all over the southern states,\" and adds, \"that it was not known how it\ncame, or where from, but its native country is Japan.\" In some parts of\nthe South it is known as \"Japan clover,\" and is highly valued as a forage\nplant. But the war had nothing more to do with the appearance of this\nplant \"all over the southern states,\" than the changes of the moon, or the\nphenomenal man therein. The plant had been noticed in certain localities\nin the South before the war, but the circumstance of its very general\nappearance throughout a large area of that section of country, was not\nparticularly noticed until the confederate troops began to move from one\nsouthern state to another, when, finding it a valuable forage plant, they\nnaturally enough regarded it as a providential dispensation, especially in\nthose sections where other forage plants and nutritious gramma were not\nabundant. But this plant would have made its appearance just the same had\nthe war never been thought of as a possible remedy for aggressive\nlegislation, however real or imaginary it may have been.\n\nIt can be easily accounted for, however, on the theory we have\nsuggested--that of the germinal principle of life implanted in the earth,\nas the Bible genesis indubitably indicates. The plant in question has long\nbeen a native of Japan, which lies in the same warm temperate zone as the\nsouthern states. The same general hygrometric and thermometric conditions\nprevail throughout the two countries or sections of country. These, added\nto the necessary telluric conditions, give the required moisture, heat,\nand soil-constituents for the development of the Japan clover in the\nSouth, the same as it was originally developed in its native country. And\nit is just as much native to the South now, as it was hundreds or\nthousand's of years ago to Japan. It did not come from seeds scattered by\nwar, or any other imaginable agency of man, but from the indestructible,\nvital units or germs implanted in the earth itself. Had the plant appeared\nin any one locality, or even in half a dozen separate localities, in the\nSouth, it might possibly have been accounted for on the theory of\nProfessor Thurber. But its simultaneous appearance over \"all the southern\nstates,\" as he puts it, absolutely negatives any such theory. Neither\nwinds, river or ocean currents, casual mountain torrents, birds,\nquadrupeds, war, or even man himself, could have effected this sudden and\nwide distribution of the plant in question. It came as did all other\nplant-life, in the first instance, from geographical conditions--those\nfavoring the development of primordial germs--just as the different\norganic infusions, experimentally prepared by the physiologist, produce\ntheir respective forms of infusorial life; each distinctive form depending\non the chemical conditions of the infusion at the time the microscopic\nexamination is made. Change the conditions, or defer the examination until\nthe conditions themselves are changed, and other and different forms of\nlife will make their appearance, in harmony with the physiological law we\nhave named.\n\nThis wonderful play of the vital forces of nature is no less dependant on\n\"conditions\"--on the necessary pre-existing plasma, chemically balanced\nsoils, organic solutions, etc.--than the alleged \"dynamical aggregates,\"\n\"_molecules organiques_,\" \"plastide particles,\" or \"highly differentiated\nlife-stuff,\" insisted upon by the physicists, in their materialistic\ntheories of life. These physicists make even the slightest change in\ndevelopmental phases--whether statical, as in the case of crystals, or\ndynamical, as in the case of living organisms--to depend on physical\nconditions,--those aiding and abetting what they call the \"molecular play\nof physical forces.\" But with their theory that matter and motion are the\nonly self-subsistent, indestructible elements in the universe, what\n\"molecular play\" can be attributed to matter but that which is derived\nfrom motion, or some one of its alleged correlates? We can only imagine\ntwo sorts of motion as possible metaphysical conceptions in connection\nwith matter--_molar_ motion, or that relating to matter moving in mass,\nand _molecular_ motion, or that relating to the movements of matter in its\nunaggregated form, or as confined to molecules.\n\nBut motion itself is not an absolute entity. It is not so much even as a\ncollocating or placing force of matter itself. It is, at best, only a\nmechanical impulse imparted by one moving body to another; or, more\naccurately speaking, a continuous change of place in a moving body. In\nother words, it is simply a _process_ or _mode_ of action, and stands in\nabout the same relation to matter as _growth_ does to a living plant or\ntree. Independently of matter it has no existence, either objectively or\nsubjectively, or even as a metaphysical conception. To allege its\nindestructibility, as the physicists do, is simply to predicate an\nadditional property of indestructible matter. We may call it\n\"force\"--something that constantly expends itself in a moving body--but\nit is utterly incapable of definition, or of conception even, except as\nit stands related to such moving body. All the marvellous \"correlates of\nmotion,\" therefore, producing such wonderful effects upon matter, in\nboth its molar and molecular states or conditions, are nothing more nor\nless than vague and inconclusive inductions, derived from premises\nhaving, at best, nothing but a relative existence in a universe of\nmoving matter. It would be decidedly better to agree with Haeckel, that\nmatter is the only actual existence, than to predicate of matter a\nco-existent and wholly inexplicable \"somewhat,\" whereon to base a purely\nphysical hypothesis of life.\n\nBut let us return from this slight digression. The beautiful and purely\nlocal fern (_Schizoea pusilla_) growing in the pine barrens of New Jersey,\naffords quite as conclusive proof of the correctness of the Bible genesis\nof life as the phenomenal appearance of Japan clover in the South. It was\nat one time supposed that this most delicate and beautiful of all our\nferns was peculiar to the New Jersey pine barrens. But it has been\nascertained that it grows quite as abundantly in similar barrens in New\nZealand, which are in the south temperate zone, at about the same latitude\nsouth, that these pine barrens of New Jersey occupy in the temperate zone\nnorth. So that, at whatever period this fern originally made its\nappearance in either locality, it unquestionably found the exact\nthermometric, hygrometric, telluric, and other conditions necessary for\nthe development of its vital germs. Take any accurate, or even\nhalf-accurate, chart of plant distribution on the earth's surface, and it\nwill be found that, everywhere, under the same favoring conditions, plants\nof the same genera and species make their appearance independently of any\nknown processes of dissemination in the case of seeds. The distribution is\nnot one of seeds, but rather of geographical conditions--thermometric,\nhygrometric, telluric, and possibly chemical. And this is true of all\nvegetation, whether growing in the same plant zones, in high latitudes, at\nhigh altitudes, or under one degree of temperature and moisture or\nanother. Whenever the telluric conditions are the same or similar, in the\nrespective localities named, and the temperature and moisture correspond,\nthe necessary plant distribution follows in obedience to the divine\nmandate--\"Let the earth bring forth.\" This is the one uniform law that\ngoverns everywhere, and the only one that accounts for all the diversified\nmanifestations of plant-life, now, as heretofore, taking place upon our\nglobe. And the same is measurably true of animal life. It accounts for the\nappearance of every form of life in organic infusions; for _Bacteria_ in\nthe blood, _Torul\u00e6_ in the tissues, plastide particles, morphological\ncells, and every other vital manifestation, from the smallest conceivable\n\"unit\" of life in protaplasmic matter, to the lordliest and most defiant\nforest oak that ever bared its arms to the storms and tempests of\ncenturies. A purely materialistic science may perk its head with an air of\naffected incredulity, and superciliously turn aside from this hypothesis,\nbecause it does not shock our veneration for the Sacred Scriptures, but\nlet its special advocates advance some more consistent and rational\nlife-theory than that of \"molecular machinery worked by molecular force,\"\nor content themselves, with Dr. Gull, in confessing that they are unable\nto draw the first line between \"living matter\" and \"dead matter,\" as they\nabsurdly use these terms.\n\nIt is conceded that much extravagant speculation has been wasted upon this\nquestion of the distribution of seeds. The ambition of each new writer has\nseemingly been to hit upon some new theory of distribution. The \"bird\ntheory\" is a failure, as we have shown; nor do they invariably fly due\neast or west, so as to supply the several climatic zones with their\nrespective vegetations. The same is true of the \"squirrel theory,\" for\nthis nimble little rodent is as likely to head north or south as to follow\nthe course of the sun; the \"wind theory\" is subject to too many shifts and\nchanges to be accounted a reliable agency; the \"river-and-ocean-current\ntheories\" are still less satisfactory, since rivers flow in diverse\ndirections, and ocean currents bear with safety only their own aquatic\nplants; the \"mummy-case theory\" is hardly an accredited agency, and the\n\"war theory\" is attended with too much destruction of life to be safely\nrelied on as conserving the vital forces of nature. The climatic zones,\nand high and low altitudes, have still to be consulted to get at the real\ncauses of distribution, or such as conclusively satisfy the scientific\nmind. For no single plant is really a cosmopolite. They are simply the\nhabitats of their own separate zones, except as high altitudes are\nreached, and climatic and other conditions favor the appearance of such\nvegetation as belongs to other plant zones. If we would find the more\ncommon plants and weeds of New England in North Carolina or Tennessee, we\nmust go into the mountainous regions of those states, at an altitude which\ncompensates for the difference in latitude, and where the influencing\nconditions of plant-life are essentially the same. In such localities, we\nshall find the same household plants, garden weeds, and general\nvegetation, as in higher northern latitudes, not because their seeds have\nbeen borne thither from New England or elsewhere, but because the same\nclimatic, telluric and other conditions prevail as in the more northern\nlocalities. And these conditions are what determine the development and\ngrowth of local vegetations.\n\nAnd so of the alpine firs, grasses, harebells, lichens, mosses, etc. Their\nseeds have not been scattered, by any known agencies, over intervening\nregions, for thousands of miles or more, in order to find lodgment on\nthese lofty mountain cones; but, conditions being the same, the same\nvegetable growths appear. This is nature's method of propagating \"vital\nunits\" and diversifying plant-life--geographical conditions everywhere\ndetermining the proper distribution. But if nature is so prolific of vital\nresources, in the propagation of plant-life, what need has she of natural\nseeds? We anticipate this inquiry only to answer it; for we recognize it\nas a legitimate one in this connection. Our answer is that the seeds are\ngiven for the use of man, that he may control and utilize vegetation, and\nnot have to depend on more or less uncertain conditions. Agricultural\nchemistry must be carried to a much higher degree of perfection than it is\nlikely to reach in the next ten centuries at least, to determine whether\nany particular plat of ground has been chemically balanced for the growth\nof wheat, to the exclusion of other cereal crops. Besides, the process of\nsoil-balancing might be altogether too expensive to be indulged in by\njudicious husbandry. These chemical conditions admit of too many possible\nfailures, in balancing even the smallest patch of ground, to justify\nexperiments in the direction named. Seeds also subserve the important\nsubsidiary purpose of supplying food for many birds and animals, more or\nless useful to man.\n\nBut chemistry has its limits as to usefulness in all human laboratories.\nAs man's wisdom is limited, so is his power over the elementary forces of\nnature confined to very narrow boundaries. It is given to him to search\nout many inventions, and to pry, thus far and no farther, into the secrets\nof nature, or, more properly speaking, into the secrets of God. There is\nno doubt that if our chemico-molecular theorists respecting\nlife-phenomena, could produce, in their laboratories, the exact\ninter-uterine plasma, or plasmic conditions, of an animal--any animal, in\nfact--and continue these conditions during the proper period of gestation,\nthey _might_ produce life _de novo_.[13] But the most daring physicist\nwould stand aghast at the bare proposal of such an experiment. Neither his\nknowledge of chemistry, nor the present uncertain value attaching to\n\"molecular machinery,\" would justify him, for a moment, in entering upon\nsuch a purely tentative and empirical an undertaking.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to assume that the same law of vital force governs\nin the appearance and geographical distribution of _fungi_, as universally\nobtains in the higher and more complex vegetal growths. And although it\nmay be difficult, in some instances, to draw the precise line between\ncertain low mycological forms and the amoeboid and some other primitive\nmanifestations of animal life, yet all vegetable physiologists agree in\nassigning a purely vegetable origin to all the primary groups of\nfungi--their general cellular character determining their proper place in\nclassification. And in all their extended family groups, pervading nature\nas widely as animal and vegetable life, we find that uniform chemical and\nother conditions produce uniform mycological results. Spores are no more\nnecessary for their appearance, in the first instance, than acorns are\nessential to the appearance of an oak forest when it succeeds the pine.\nWherever the necessary conditions of moisture and heat are found to\nobtain, in connection with decayed or decaying substances, the particular\nform of fungus indicated thereby, whether parasitic or non-parasitic, will\nmake its appearance. Continuously damp walls, or wall-paper, will produce\nthem in specific variety, not because their invisible spores are flying\nabout in the atmosphere to find appropriate lodgment, but because the\nnecessary conditions obtain for their manifestation, or for the\ndevelopment of their vital units--those everywhere diffused, and ready to\nburgeon forth from the proper matrix, or from certain nutrient conditions\nto be met with in all vegetable substances, after the process of decay has\ncommenced. Some orders appear only in a single matrix, but the greater\npart of them flourish on different decaying substances.\n\nDr. M.C. Cooke, in speaking of non-parasitic fungi, and especially of\nmoulds, says: \"It would be far more difficult to mention substances on\nwhich they are never developed than to indicate where they have been\nfound.\" The parasitic fungi, however, generally confine themselves to\ncertain special plants, and rarely to any other. It is only the condition\nof these special plants, when affected by decay, that seems favorable for\ntheir development; not because their spores (assuming that all fungi come\nfrom spores,) possess the intelligence to fly about and hunt up the proper\nnutrient matter on which to subsist during their developmental progress\nfrom specific spores into genetic forms of life. The rust or blight of\ngrain is not the cause, therefore, but rather the result, of the common\ndisease known as \"blight.\" Without some excess or deficiency of absorption\nand elaboration in the growth of grain or plants--something essentially\ndisturbing their normal and harmonious processes of development--no\nmycological forms would appear on their stems or roots, nor would they\ndevelop themselves on their fading leaves or congested and decaying fruit.\nTo say that there is any intelligent preference in these fungi--the\ndifferent species of _Mucor_, for instance--for disgusting offal over\ndecaying fruit, bread, paste, preserves, etc., is to predicate a higher\ndegree of intelligence of fungus spores than of the average brute\ncreation, with all its wonderful instincts for guidance.\n\nWe might refer to other classes of fungi developing themselves in the\ntesta of hard seeds, and in the interior of acorns, sweet chestnuts,\netc.,--those in which there is no discoverable external opening by the aid\nof the microscope--to show the absolute absurdity of the theory that the\nspores of fungi, including the non-parasitic and other autonomous moulds,\ngo madly foraging about the country in pursuit of decaying cocoanuts,\napples, pears, plums, oranges, etc., and even committing their\ndepredations on hermetically canned fruits, the concealed honeycomb of\nbeehives, the pupa of moths, and whatever else they may intelligently\nselect as a desirable matrix or habitat. No such theory as this will stand\nthe test of thorough research and investigation, in any mycological\ndirection. Fungi everywhere make their initial appearance in the\nconditions of decay, as plants and trees originally make theirs in the\nenvironing conditions of vital manifestation. That our life-giving\natmosphere--the \"_pater omnipotens \u00c6ther_\" of Virgil, \"descending into the\nbosom of his joyous spouse (the earth) in fructifying showers, and great\nhimself, mingling with her great body\" for the development of all things\nof life--should be so immeasurably thronged with death-pursuing fungi that\nmyriads of their spores might dance without jostling on the point of a\ncambric needle, is infinitely more fanciful than the conceptions of the\npoet, in personifying the atmosphere as \"father \u00c6ther,\" and the earth as\nhis \"joyous spouse.\" But life, with its \"pardlike spirit, beautiful and\nswift,\" has reached its highest conceptions in the mind of the poet, not\nin the speculations of the scientist. What a \"mingled yarn,\" spun from\nmany-colored yet invisible threads, is it in the creative mind of a\nShakespeare, and how it looms up into \"a dome of many-colored glass,\nstaining the white radiance of eternity,\" under the magic touch of a\nShelley! And yet how is it dwarfed down to a contemptible piece of\n\"molecular machinery\" by the scientist--one so utterly contemptible in its\nmanifestations that it is ordered to take \"a back seat\" in this universe\nof all-potential matter and motion!\n\nDr. Cooke, in his \"Handbook of British Fungi,\" virtually concedes that the\nspores of the large puff-ball (_Lycoperdon giganteum_), as well as those\nof mushrooms, truffles, and other edible fungi (those with whose methods\nof propagation man is best acquainted), may be produced artificially. But\nthe process by which their production is thus effected, is more properly a\nnatural than an artificial one. In speaking of truffle-grounds, he says\n(quoting from Broome) \"that whenever a plantation of beech, or beech and\nfir, is made in the chalky districts of Salisbury Plain, after the lapse\nof a few years truffles are produced, and that the plantations continue\nproductive for a period of from ten to fifteen years, after which they\ncease to be so.\" No truffle spores were planted in these cases, but the\nconditions of the soil, interlaced by the roots and shaded by the branches\nof the young beech trees, or the beech and fir, became favorable for the\ndevelopment of truffle \"germs,\" and they made their appearance just as\nmushrooms do in caves and other places, where artificial beds are made and\nchemically balanced for their development and growth. And the reason why\nthey disappeared, after a period of ten or fifteen years, was simply\nbecause the proper nutriment of the soil was exhausted, and not in\nconsequence of its being too deeply shaded by the growing trees. One\nuniform rule would seem to govern in the culture of this much-coveted\nfungus. Wherever the necessary environing conditions obtain, they\n_appear_, and wherever these conditions fail, they _disappear_,\nnotwithstanding the most persistent efforts to save them by watering the\nsoil with fresh infusions of the plant. In proof of this, one form of\ntruffle (_Tuber \u00e6stivum_) appears under beech trees, another form (_Tuber\nmacrosporum_) under oak trees, and still a third form (_Tuber brumale_)\nunder oaks and white poplars; showing that so slight a change in soil\nconditions as that resulting from the presence of poplars among oaks,\nproduces a very material change in the character of the fungus--one\namounting to a specific difference in variety.\n\nThe process of artificially producing mushroom spores is a very simple\none, and may be easily followed. You have only to collect a quantity of\nhorse-droppings, mingle with them some common road sand, place them under\ncover, see that they are well beaten down in order to prevent\nover-heating--turning them occasionally for the same purpose--and in due\ntime they will generate sufficient spores for a dozen mushroom beds of the\nordinary size. The reason for their appearance is the same as that\ngoverning truffle spores--they come whenever conditions favor, that is,\nwhenever the soil is chemically balanced for their development and growth.\nIn other words, they come because it is just as impossible for them not to\ncome, in their proper environing conditions, as it is for the earth, in\nits present cosmical relations, not to respond to its axial rotation. \"Let\nthe earth bring forth\" is just as much an outspoken law of nature, and one\nas inexorably obeyed, as that unerring force of gravity which led\nLeverrier, in the faith of his inductions, to indicate the precise point\nin the heavens where the far-off planet, now bearing his name, might be\nseen by the required telescope.\n\nDr. Cooke, quoting Mr. Cuthill's directions for producing mushroom spores,\nsays: \"These little collections of horse-droppings and road sand, if kept\ndry in shed, hole, or corner, under cover, will, in a short time, generate\nplenty of spawn, and will be ready to spread on the surface of the bed in\nearly autumn.\" The collections should, of course, be made in the early\nsummer. But it is no part of our object to indicate, in this connection,\nthe process of truffle or mushroom culture. We merely refer to the methods\nto show that the vital units, or germinal principles of life, in the case\nof fungi, are just as dependent on \"conditions\" for their development, as\nwere the primordial germs of the gigantic cryptogams of the carboniferous\nera. These primordial germs, or the _ZRA_ of the Bible genesis, must have\npreceded the first fungous growth, as they preceded the first\nspore-bearing cryptogam.\n\nM. Gasparin, in his report on the production of truffles, made to the\ngreat \"Paris Exposition\" of 1855, refers to the \"natural truffle-grounds\nat Vaucluse,\" where the \"common oak produces truffles like the evergreen\noak;\" although, in other localities, owing no doubt to the different\nconditions of the soil, those gathered at the base of the one species of\noak differ very materially from those gathered at the base of the other.\nAll these experimental results, and many others we might give in\nconnection with the culture of edible fungi, point to the conditions of\nthe soil, produced by natural rather than artificial means, as\nall-essential for the propagation of fungus spores, as well as their\ndevelopment into full-sized plants. The cultivation of other and minuter\nfungi, for scientific purposes, need not be referred to in this\nconnection. The same general observations will be found to apply in the\ncase of all the experiments tried, although some very curious and\nremarkable modifications occur where pseudospores are to be found in the\nmicelium of different plants. Nearly all these fungi have their own\nparasites, originating undoubtedly in the diseased conditions of the plant\nfrom which they derive their nutriment. Indeed, all fungi, whether\nparasitic or non-parasitic, have their origin, more or less definitely\noccurring, in decay. It is no more true that death is a necessity of life,\nthan that life is an equal necessity of death. As out of the dead past\nsprings the eternally living present, so from the \"muddy vesture of decay\"\nspring all the marvellous powers of reproduction with which nature was\nendowed from the beginning.\n\nBut it is unnecessary to dwell longer on the spores of fungi. As with the\nseeds of plants and trees, these spores never had an existence, and never\ncould have had one, before the first independent fungus appeared to\nproduce them. The fungus before the spore is the inevitable induction. No\ndistinction between necessary and contingent truth can ever take a\nstronger hold than this on the human mind. Whence, then, the _first_\nfungus? or whence, rather, all those colonies, families, orders,\ndivisions, and countless distinct individuals, extant everywhere, in the\nmycological world? The answer we shall give will be anticipated from what\nwe have already so confidently affirmed. Life comes from Life, as spirit\ncomes from God. And when \"the spirit of God\" moved upon the face of the\ndepths--upon the face of all the earth--at whatever stage in the progress\nof our planet, from its original form to its present myriad-thronged\ncondition of life, that transcendent event occurred, _Nature_, as we\nhalf-idolatrously worship her, received her first baptism of life, and her\nsolemn consecration as \"the vicar of God.\" No wonder, then, that at that\necstatic moment, when the ineffably bright mantle, fringed with \"the white\nradiance of eternity,\" fell upon her, \"the morning stars sang together and\nall the sons of God shouted for joy.\" And nature has been true to both her\nbaptism and her consecration. She claims no worship, no adoration, no\nidolatrous homage from man, but continually sends up her eternal chant and\nchoral anthem of praise to the great Giver of life. Every flower of the\nfield, every blade of grass, every stream that mirrors the heavens above\nher, every mountain top from which she points an index finger, every\nbreeze in which she whispers, and every cataract in which she speaks, all\nproclaim the power, the wisdom, the goodness of God--the source of all\nlife in the universe, from the minutest spore to all-inventive,\nsoul-endowed man.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nPlant Migration and Interglacial Periods.\n\n\n\nAmong the leading propositions laid down by Arthur Renfrey, Esq., F.R.S.\netc., etc., in the able article prepared by him for \"The Physical Atlas of\nNatural Phenomena,\" by Alexander Keith Johnston, Edinburg Edition, 1856,\non \"The Geographical Distribution of the most Important Plants Yielding\nFood,\" are the following:--\n\n1. \"The primary condition of the existence of any species of plant, is its\nabsolute creation, of which we know nothing.\n\n2. \"But we assume each species to have been _created but once in time and\nin place_, and that its present diffusion is the result of its own law of\nreproduction under the favorable or restrictive influences of laws\nexternal to it.[14]\n\n3. \"The most important of external laws are those relating to climate,\nsince _any species can flourish only within narrower or wider, but always\nfixed limits, of temperature, humidity etc_.,\n\n4. \"The climate depends primarily on latitude, since this indicates\ndistance from the source of heat, and the degree of obliquity of the\nheating rays.\"\n\nThere are other governing conditions, of course, such as the average\nrain-fall, distance from the equator, the elevation above the sea level in\nthe various mountain systems of vegetation, etc., including the\nhygrometric, thermometric, telluric, and other conditions, of the several\nlocalities in which the different species of vegetation make their\nappearance.\n\nBut why should this distinguished naturalist insist upon the specific\ncreation of either plants or animals? No scientific work of any paramount\nvalue confines the creative power of the universe to such narrow and\nrestricted limits. Nor is there a particle of evidence to be drawn from\nthe Bible that either plants or animals primarily originated in pairs.\n\"Let the earth bring forth\" is a command without limitation, or\nrestriction, as to time, place, or number; and there is no reason to\ndoubt that myriads of living forms swarmed everywhere, at first as now,\nin nature.\n\nThe idea, as expressed by Mr. Renfrey, that they were specifically created\nat one time and place only, whether in pairs, tens, twenties, or hundreds,\nis neither a rational one, nor has it any experience-argument or\nscientific authority on which to stand. Take, for instance, an\nexperience-argument directly in point:--When the salt wells were first\nbored at Syracuse, N.Y., and the salt water was suffered to flow in waste\nover the low grounds about the salt-works, the small saline plants\npeculiar to salt-marshes in the warm temperate zone made their appearance,\nnot in pairs, tens or hundreds, but in thousands rather, and have\nnourished there ever since. They came because conditions favored; because\na salt-marsh had been artificially produced hundreds of miles away from\nthe sea coast. This is only one of a large number of cases--more than we\nhave room to specify in this connection--showing that wherever man,\nartificially or otherwise, produces the necessary conditions of\nplant-life, nature responds to the germinal law precisely as she did\nmillions of years ago when the first salt-marsh favored the appearance of\nthese saline plants--such as grow under no other conditions or\ncircumstances.\n\nBut this idea of plants coming primarily from a single pair of\nprogenitors, and each primordial pair branching off into diversified\noffspring, as in the case of the cabbage, assumed to be the original\nancestor of all the turnips and ruta-bagas, may be an article of botanical\nfaith, but never of experimental proof. \"_Entia non sunt multiplicanda\npr\u00e6ter necessitatem_\" is an old and well-approved maxim, applicable alike\nto the countless myriads of living organisms, as to the innumerable\ncrystalline forms to be found everywhere in nature. Nothing is produced\nwithout the necessary conditions on which its production depends.\n\"Necessity,\" in its primitive signification, is a term of the very widest\nmeaning, and most universal application. It applies as well to the course\nof nature as to the course of human events--to the laws of vegetable and\nanimal growth as to the inevitable march and order of celestial movements.\nAs applied to any form of life-manifestation it implies a law of\ndevelopment and growth, as well as the physiological conditions without\nwhich vital manifestations are impossible. For law, in a physiological\nsense, is that mode of vital action by which effects are invariably and\ninevitably produced.[15] And this law is just as dependent on necessary\nvital conditions as vital manifestations are dependent on a physiological\nlaw. There must always be this reciprocal dependence and relationship\nbetween conditioning causes and effects. Whenever and wherever the\nnecessary vital conditions exist, the physiological law takes effect, and\nthe requisite vital manifestation is witnessed. And this is no doubt as\ntrue of animal as of vegetable life.\n\nThe earth's surface has been divided into eight separate zones, each of\nwhich is distinguished by its peculiar or characteristic fauna and flora.\nTheir order, measured from the geographical equator, is as follows;\n\n  1. The Equatorial Zone, extending from  0\u00b0 to 15\u00b0.\n  2. \" Tropical       \"      \"         \" 15\u00b0 \"  23\u00b0.\n  3. \" Sub-tropical   \"      \"         \" 23\u00b0 \"  34\u00b0.\n  4. \" Warm Temperate \"      \"         \" 34\u00b0 \"  45\u00b0.\n  5. \" Cold           \"      \"         \" 45\u00b0 \"  58\u00b0.\n  6. \" Sub-arctic     \"      \"         \" 58\u00b0 \"  66\u00b0.\n  7. \" Arctic         \"      \"         \" 66\u00b0 \"  72\u00b0.\n  8. \" Polar          \"      \"         \" 72\u00b0 \"  82\u00b0.\n\nThese several zones become sixteen in number when considered with\nreference to both the northern and southern hemispheres. And a like\ndivision of isothermals is made in the case of all our mountain systems,\nextending in both directions from the equator. In ascending our\nequatorial, tropical, and sub-tropical mountains, we find, of course, at\ntheir several bases, the temperature of the zones in which they\nrespectively lie; from two thousand to three thousand feet, we reach the\nnext higher zone, and so on, at about the same ratio of altitude, until we\nascend to the polar zone or the line of perpetual ice and snow. The peak\nof Teneriffe, for instance, lies in the sub-tropical zone, but, at the\nelevation named, we meet with the vegetation which characterizes the warm\ntemperate zone. And this holds true of all our mountain systems, in all\nlatitudes, and at all altitudes, in all parts of the globe.\n\nThey all present the same or strikingly similar characteristics in plant\nlife, with such variations and modifications only as might be accounted\nfor, were all the influencing conditions and surrounding circumstances,\nmodifying geographical distribution, known to us. From the lowest to the\nhighest regions in which vegetation flourishes, this rule, with slight\nexceptions only, will be found to obtain, and it is in this direction that\nthe observations of the scientific, as well as practical botanist, should\nhereafter be extended.\n\nHumboldt noticed this characteristic feature of the earth's vegetation\nquite early in his explorations, and accordingly divided the tropical\nmountains, as the earth's surface was then divided, into three separate\nzones, the tropical, the temperate, and the frigid. But a closer\nclassification now distinguishes them into the same number of zones as are\nmarked, in approximate isotherms, on the earth's surface. Mr. Renfrey\ngives us further statistics of great value respecting these several plant\nzones of the globe, all of which fit so admirably into our theory of\nplant-distribution, that we can hardly see how the most prejudiced mind\ncan resist the force of its application. Among the most important of these\nstatistical facts are tables giving the comparative rain-falls in the\ndifferent plant zones of the old and new worlds, and the classes of\nvegetation peculiar to each of them.\n\nThe Equatorial zone, for instance, is characterized by extreme luxuriance\nin growth, owing no doubt to the great heat and abundant moisture therein,\nand exhibits a vegetation which is peculiar to itself, and which could\nonly thrive under the hygrometric, thermometric, telluric, and other\nconditions of that extensive zone.\n\nThe Tropical zones (those north and south of the equator) are\ncharacterized by a more abundant and diversified underwood, and, while\nretaining some of the equatorial forms, present fewer parasites and less\nrapid and luxuriant growths. They contain many plants and trees which are\npeculiar to their own limits, and these are generally the hardiest and\nmost abundant. All equatorial forms disappear in these zones, that is do\nnot pass into the sub-tropical zones. And these characteristics obtain in\nboth the northern and southern tropical zones, as well as in the mountain\nsystems within the equatorial regions.\n\nThe Sub-tropical zones, while retaining some of the more marked forms and\ngeneral features of the tropical zones, such as palms, bananas, etc.,\nexhibit the most striking characteristics of their own, consisting of a\ngreater abundance of forest trees, especially those having broad, leathery\nand shining leaves, like the magnolias, the different species of laurels,\nand plants of the myrtle family. The tropical forms all disappear in these\nzones, as the equatorial do in the tropical zones.\n\nThe Warm Temperate zones exhibit the same disposition to retain some of\nthe hardier and more abundant sub-tropical forms that characterize the\nother zones, in respect to their adjoining isotherms. But the trees and\nplants peculiar to this zone north, (and the same is no doubt true of the\ncorresponding zone south), are more numerous, and embrace a wider range of\ndeciduous, as well as evergreen growths. Evergreen shrubs, heaths,\ncistusses, and leguminous plants are everywhere more abundant. The marked\ncharacteristic of these zones is that the trees, plants, and arborescent\ngrasses differ more widely in their general character, as well as run more\nextensively into varieties.\n\nThe Cold Temperate zones retain many of the deciduous trees of the warm\ntemperate, but with less conspicuous blossoms, while a stronger tendency\nis shown toward social conifers, and the trunks of the deciduous trees are\nmore profusely overrun with mosses, lichens, etc. These zones are also\nabundant in grasses.\n\nThe Sub-arctic zone north largely retains its hold upon the social\nconifers, giving place, northward, on this continent, as well as in Europe\nand Asia, to birch and alder, alternating with willows where the soil is\nsufficiently moist. Green pastures are still abundant, and showy flowering\nherbs abound during the brief spring, summer, and autumn months.\n\nThe Arctic zone retains few of the sub-arctic forms and its vegetation\ngenerally corresponds to what we call alpine shrubs, grasses, etc.\n\nThe North Polar zone shows few signs of vegetation and is thought to be\nentirely devoid of shrubs. A few small herbacious perennials of the most\nextreme dwarf habit, with a few lichens and mosses, constitute its entire\nvegetation.\n\nThere are some seeming exceptions to these general statements respecting\nplant-distribution, but they are hardly exceptions when we consider the\nelevation at which any one species, as the birches for instance, may\nappear, as they frequently do, in three several zones.\n\nFrom these facts, gathered from the highest authorities, and well-attested\non all hands, what general conclusions, if any, are to be drawn? Before\nanswering this inquiry, let us proceed to state what conclusions _have_\nbeen drawn. According to all the authorities we have examined on the\ndistribution of plant life; on the migration of plants and animals; on\nclimate and time as affecting the transference of isothermal and\nisochimenal lines; on glacial and inter-glacial periods (with one\nimportant exception only), the assumption maintained is substantially that\nof Mr. Renfrey, that \"each species of plant and animal was created but\nonce in time and place,\" and that its present diffusion is the result of\nits \"own law of reproduction under the favorable or restrictive influences\nof laws external to it.\" In other words, they insist upon original\nplant-centres, without definitely stating when or where they occurred, and\nthat from these centres both plants and animals have migrated to all parts\nof the globe where they now appear, even crossing the equatorial zones\nwhere they could not live for a single day. This migration theory they\nattempt to explain in a way that is altogether more ingenious than\nsatisfactory.\n\nThe important exception to which we refer is that of Professor Agassiz, as\nreported by his associate professor of Harvard University, Mr. Asa Gray,\nin his \"Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism.\" In this work\nProfessor Gray says of his late distinguished associate, that so far as he\nwas aware, Professor Agassiz was the only leading naturalist \"who did not\ntake into his very conception of a species, explicitly or by implication,\nthe notion of a material connection resulting from the descent of the\nindividuals composing it from a common stock, of a local origin.\"\n\nAnd Professor Gray adds this further testimony to the closeness of his\nassociate's observations, in considering the very point here under\nconsideration: \"Agassiz wholly eliminates community of descent from his\nidea of species, and even conceives a species to have been as numerous in\nindividuals, and as widely spread over space, or as segregated in\ndiscontinuous spaces, from the first to the later periods.\" And this view\nis undoubtedly the correct one. At all events, it entirely harmonizes with\nthe facts of the biblical genesis, and obviates the necessity of\naccounting for the appearance of the same genera and species of plants or\nanimals in the southern as in the northern hemispheres; in fact, their\nappearance in all parts of the globe, in corresponding isotherms, and\nunder similar conditions of moisture and soil-constituents.\n\nWherever the hygrometric, thermometric, telluric, and other conditions\nfavor, the class of vegetation indicated by the presence of these\nconditions makes its appearance, just as the fire-weed makes its\nappearance in our warm temperate zone, not from the presence of seed, but\nsimply the presence of \"conditions\"--the _pro_vision of man harmonizing\nwith the _pre_vision of nature. In the same way the \"Japan clover\" made\nits appearance, as Professor Thurber states, \"all over the southern\nstates\" during the late civil war, not from the migration of plants, but\nthe presence of natural conditions.[16]\n\nThe numerous facts we have already given, and many others that might be\narrayed in advocacy of our position, taken in connection with the general\nfacts here presented in regard to plant-distribution, all point directly\nto climatal and soil conditions as the real cause of dissemination, and\nnot to their migration from continent to continent, and across vast\nintervening seas and oceans, as the theory of Professor Gray and others\nwould require us to believe. Take the case of the _Schizoea pusilla_ of\nthe New Jersey pine barrens, to which we have already referred, growing in\nsimilar barrens in New Zealand, and how are we to account for their\nantipodal appearance upon the globe? Professor Thurber refers to this\nplant as a \"purely local fern\" of New Jersey, and says it was for a long\ntime supposed to be peculiar to that state until it was ascertained that\nit grew in New Zealand. Whether this plant \"travelled\" from New Zealand to\nNew Jersey, or journeyed in the opposite direction, none of these\n\"specific-centre\" gentlemen can well inform us. Professor Agassiz would\nhave said that it might have appeared, in numerous individuals, in both\nlocalities at the same time, or at different times, as conditions favored;\nand this would have been an exact scientific statement, no doubt, of the\nfact. Mr. Arthur Renfrey, and those who accept his scientific formul\u00e6,\nmust insist that this most beautiful of all our ferns was such a \"favorite\nchild of nature\" that she condescended to create it _twice_ \"in time and\nplace,\" instead of only _once_. It is a poor rule, they may say, that has\nno exceptions in phenomenal manifestation.\n\nProfessor Gray may insist that such a phenomenon as this requires belief\nin the supernatural, and that migration by ocean-currents is the more\nrational theory of the two. But M. Alphonse de Candolle--quite as high\nauthority as we can quote--has come to the conclusion that marine\ncurrents, and all other suggested means of distant transportation, \"have\nplayed only a very small part in the actual dispersion of species,\" even\nacross narrow channels and the near arms of seas. But why should the\nappearance of this fern at opposite points of the globe, with thousands of\nmiles of ocean and continent intervening, be any more supernatural than\nthe presence of _Bacteria_ or _Torul\u00e6_[17] in different organic\ninfusions? If the vital units of these _infusori\u00e6_, are present in\nexperimental infusion, as Professor Bastian virtually admits, why may not\nthe vital germs or units of this _Schizoea pusilla_ have made their\nappearance, in developmental forms, both in New Zealand and New Jersey, at\nthe same or different periods of time? If Professor Gray regards the\nmicroscopical forms in organic infusions, or the statical forms in\ninorganic solutions, as supernatural, or as above the powers of nature,\nthen we have no exceptions to make to his position. First, prove that\nthese vital manifestations of nature are above the powers with which she\nhas been endowed, or was originally endowed and we will concede the\nquestion of supernaturalness, and drop all exceptions to his line of\nargument. Whenever a dynamic law, or a statical, is found to be uniformly\noperative under a given set of conditions, we had supposed the operation\nnot to be above the powers of nature, but in entire accord with them, and\nhence not supernatural.\n\nBut let us see into what an inextricable labyrinth of difficulty we are\nled by this theory of plant-migration from the equatorial to the\nsub-arctic zone, and _vice-versa,_ and even beyond the equator to the\nsub-antarctic zone, and still _vice versa_. Before proceeding to consider\nthe probable duration of the several geographical epochs, called glacial\nperiods, on which their theory of plant-migration depends, or considering\nthe evidence touching these glacial periods, we will state their position\nin regard to these possible migrations as briefly and concisely as we know\nhow. Mr. Darwin's solution of this problem is the generally accepted one\nof the evolutionists, as well as most of the present scientific world. As\nthe truth, or rather the falsity, of his pet theory of evolution depended\non the satisfactory solution of this vexed problem, it became necessary\nfor him to give his best and entire mental energies to the gigantic task\nwhich was, by universal consent, assigned him. The reader shall see how\nadmirably the thermal equator is crossed by Mr. Darwin, with his vast\nswarms of flies, mosquitoes, insectivorous and other plants, forest trees,\nanthropoid apes, and general menagerie of wild animals, such as would\ngladden the heart of the \"great American showman\" beyond the most\nextravagant comparison.\n\nThe question, bear in mind, which he was specially called upon to solve,\nwas how the temperate forms north--those, for instance, of the warm and\ncold temperate zones--managed to cross the thermal equator, and invade the\ncorresponding zones in the southern hemisphere; just as though there was\nany more necessity of determining this question than the opposite one, of\nhow the southern forms came to invade the northern hemisphere. We will\ngive his solution of this problem in his own language, that we may not be\ncharged with misrepresentation.\n\nHe says, in speaking of the glacial periods: \"As the cold became more and\nmore intense, we know that arctic forms invaded the temperate regions;\nand, from the facts just given, there can hardly be a doubt that some of\nthe more vigorous, dominant, and widest-spread temperate forms invaded the\nequatorial lowlands. The inhabitants (flora and fauna) of these hot\nlowlands would at the same time have migrated to the tropical and\nsub-tropical regions of the south; for the southern hemisphere was at this\nperiod warmer. On the decline of the glacial period, as both hemispheres\ngradually recovered their former temperatures, the northern forms living\non the lowlands under the equator would have been driven to their former\nhomes or have been destroyed, being replaced by the equatorial forms\nreturning from the south. Some, however, of the northern temperate forms\nwould almost certainly have ascended any adjoining highland, where, if\nsufficiently lofty, they would have long survived, like the arctic forms\non the mountains of Europe.\n\n\"In the regular course of events the southern hemisphere would, in its\nturn, be subject to a severe glacial period, with the northern hemisphere\nrendered warmer; and then the southern temperate forms would invade the\nequatorial lowlands. The northern forms which had before been left on the\nmountains would now descend and mingle with the southern forms. These\nlatter, when the warmth returned, would return to their former homes,\nleaving some few species on the mountains, and carrying southward with\nthem some of the northern temperate forms, which had descended from their\nmountain fastnesses. Thus we should have some few species identically the\nsame in the northern and southern temperate zones, and on the mountains of\nthe intermediate tropical regions.\"\n\nWe are sorry to spoil so ingenious a theory as this to account for\nplant-migration from the temperate zones north to the corresponding zones\nsouth. But in spite of all the great names which will frown down upon us\nin the attempt, we are obliged to demolish this altitudiness structure,\neven at the risk of its tumbling about our own ears.\n\nBut first let us lay down a few undeniable propositions, on the\nstrength of which this ingenious and purely speculative theory of Mr.\nDarwin must rest:--\n\n1. It is universally conceded by the scientific world that these glacial\nepochs, however many of them there may have been in the past and however\nfew there may be in the future, depend, for their occurrence, upon the\nmaxima of eccentricity in the earth's orbit about the sun.\n\n2. The actual amount of heat which the earth annually receives from the\nsun is in no way affected by the eccentricity of its orbit. It is a\nconstant quantity, and only unequally distributed on the earth's surface,\nbeing neither increased nor diminished, as our winters occur in aphelion\nor perihelion.\n\n3. The actual amount of ice-cap accumulated about the two poles of the\nearth, is also a constant quantity. And to measure the severity of any\nglacial epoch, we have only to determine the exact amount of ice (not\naltogether an impossible problem) about the two poles at any given time,\nand then determine the effect of its entire transference from one pole to\nthe other.\n\n4. It is not probable that the present ice-cap of the south pole extends\ncontinuously and permanently much farther north than 80\u00b0 or 81\u00b0. Mt.\nErebus, in Victoria Land, lies in about this latitude, and it was only a\nfew years since that the coast line of that island or continent was\ntraversed, by English exploring vessels, from Mt. Erebus to a point some\nten or twelve degrees further north. [18]\n\n5. But if we estimate the southern cap as extending continuously to 75\u00b0,\nwhat would be the effect of its transference at once to the ice-cap of the\nnorth pole? Would it extend it, after assuming its proper glacial slope,\nbelow 60\u00b0, a point falling within the present subarctic zone? The utmost\nlimit to which Mr. Croll, in his great work on \"Climate and Time,\"\nconceives it possible that it should extend, in any glacial epoch, is to\n55\u00b0, or about the northern boundary of England.\n\nNow unless the astronomers and physicists are all at sea about the causes\nof glaciation, the warm temperate zone can never be pushed any further\nsouth than the tropical zone, nor the cold temperate any further than the\nsub-tropical. This would be the extreme limit. Mr. Croll says, in speaking\nof these glacial periods; \"It is, of course, absurd to suppose that an\nice-cap could ever actually reach down to the equator. It is probable that\nthe last great ice-cap of the glacial epoch nowhere reached half way to\nthe equator. Our cap (that of Europe) must therefore, terminate at a\nmoderately high latitude.\" And if the gulf stream flows southward during\nthe glacial period north, as he supposes probable, the cap on this\ncontinent would probably terminate at the same moderately high latitude.\nAssuming that Mr. Croll's estimate is the more probable one, it would only\npush the cold temperate zone down to the line of the Gulf States; the warm\ntemperate, to the southern line of Mexico; the sub-tropical, to the\nCentral American States, and the tropical to the United States of\nColumbia, Venezuela, and Guiana.\n\nSuppose, then, that some seven hundred thousand years ago, more or less,\nwhen the North Pole had fully donned the earth's ice-cap, with all the\nisothermal and isochimenal changes thereby effected, what must have been\nthe line of march taken by our northern vegetal and animal forms to escape\nthe cataclysm of ice and snow then impending? Manifestly, they would have\nflocked, first to the Gulf states, then to Mexico, and afterwards to the\nCentral American states; but none of them could ever have been crowded\nthrough the Isthmus of Panama, since at the height of the last glaciation,\nthat portion of the continent must have been the tropical barrier to our\nnorthern forms, as it is now the equatorial barrier.\n\nFor the sake of the argument, however, we will suppose the northern\nice-cap to have been even more imperative in its demands than Mr. Croll\nhas deemed possible, driving some of our warm and cold temperate forms\ndown into the lowlands of Columbia, Venezuela, etc., in the extreme\nnorthern portions of South America. But how would these forms have\nmanaged, even then, to cross the thermal equator and secure a permanent\nhabitat in the present warm and cold temperate zones of that continent?\nManifestly, this question has never been practically solved, nor is it\never likely to be in our day or generation. It is nevertheless susceptible\nof solution, as Mr. Darwin thinks, by easy mental processes. We have only\nto take a bird's eye view of the situation, and mentally follow these\nforms in their long geographical tramp from the northern to the southern\nhemisphere.\n\nThey must have started, of course, some twenty thousand years or more\nbefore the earth reached its last superior limit of eccentricity. At that\ndistant epoch the sub-arctic breezes must have been blowing pretty stiffly\nin our present temperate latitudes, and these forms would have been\nconstrained, in due time, to seek a more congenial isotherm. They must\naccordingly have set out on their expedition, at about the period\nindicated, with the prospect of a long and tedious journey before them.\nSome twenty thousand years must have transpired before they reached the\nline of the present Gulf states, and it would have taken as many more\nyears for them to deploy to the right and successfully enter the Mexican\nstates. In another twenty thousand years or so they might have doubled\nVera Cruz, and headed, in a southeasterly direction, for the Central\nAmerican states. The thermal equator would by this time have reached a\npoint some thirty degrees south of the geographical equator, while the\nnorthern ice-cap would have swept down upon the traditional \"hub of the\nuniverse,\" or some ten or twelve degrees in excess of Mr. Croll's\ncalculations.\n\nTo have accomplished this grand glaciatorial feat the North Pole must have\ndonned some twenty times the amount of ice now about both poles of the\nearth, and so changed the earth's centre of gravity as to have inundated\nevery foot of land on its habitable surface. But if this terrible\ncatastrophy had been avoided, and some of our extreme northern forms had\nforced their way through the Isthmus into the lowlands of Columbia, they\nmust have done so at their greatest possible peril, even if they had\nreached the base of Old Mt. Tolima in advance of the thermal equator, now\nfleeing in dismay before the southern Ice-monarch, with all his\nisochimenal hosts in mad pursuit of their invaders. And if these\nadventurous northern forms had succeeded in ascending Mt. Tolima, they\ncould never have got down again, with the assistance of forty glaciations.\n\nBut we can imagine Mr. Darwin promptly snatching his pen to show the\nstupidity of these northern forms in not climbing Popocatepetl or some\nother lofty mountain in Central America or Mexico, on their retreat before\nthe still advancing thermal equator. But how this would have helped them\nto cross the geographical equator, we fail to see. When Mr. Darwin, and\nthe eminent corps of geologists and physicists accepting his solution of\nthis \"vexed question,\" can make a \"warm term\" south _succeed_ a \"cold\nterm\" north, we shall have no difficulty in solving the problem ourself.\nBut, unfortunately, the two terms--the cold one north and the warm one\nsouth--are simultaneous in occurrence, and the same causes which forced\nthese northern invaders into the tropics, when they followed _after_ the\nthermal equator, would have driven them ignominously back again _before_\nit. The climbing of mountains would only have prolonged their disaster.\nFor after the glaciation north comes the glaciation south, and unless our\ncold temperate zone were pushed down beyond the geographical equator, none\nof its living forms could ever have reached the corresponding zone in the\nsouthern hemisphere.\n\nBut as this \"migration theory\" is one of paramount importance to modern\nscience, and especially to \"Darwinism,\" [19] distinctively so called, let\nus, at the risk of repetition and tediousness, propose a scientific\nexpedition for the better solution of this problem. To do this, we propose\nto cut loose from our stupid predecessors, the plants and animals, and\ninvite Mr. Darwin and some of his more distinguished European\ncontemporaries, not omitting Professors Gray, Winchell, Yeomans, and some\nfew other American admirers of his, to accompany us on a fresh expedition\nfrom the warm and cold temperate zones north to the corresponding zones\nsouth, _purely in the interest of science_. To make it certain that the\ntime fixed upon for this \"expedition\" to start, will not escape their\nattention, we will state what many of them already well know, that the\npresent eccentricity of the earth's orbit is very low, being only 0.0168,\nand that, in the year of our Lord 851,800, it will reach its next superior\nlimit, with a few intervening oscillations of such minimum value as to\nrender it hardly worth our while to start before that time.\n\nWe shall be obliged, of course to invite our distinguished European party\nto join us on this side of the Atlantic, as their own narrow and\ncontracted continent furnishes no proper field for determining the problem\nin question. We shall insist upon one condition only: \"_That they shall\nnever leave the warm temperate zone in which we shall set out on our\nexpedition, except to pass halfway into an adjoining zone as is the habit,\nat times, with plants and animals_.\" This condition will have to be\nrigidly observed, otherwise our expedition would be of no scientific value\nto future generations. As we shall have plenty of time to provide the\nnecessary outfit, we will appoint Mr. Darwin purveyor-general of the\nparty, and hold him responsible for any misadventure.\n\nWe will arrange for the expedition to start in the early autumn of the\nyear of our Lord 831,800, or about twenty thousand years before the earth\nshall reach its next superior limit of eccentricity,--all of us eager, of\ncourse, to brave the climatic vicissitudes of the journey, and to solve\nthe \"great problem of the ages,\" which is, to determine how the gigantic\nelephantoids of the Eocene period managed to cross the thermal equator,\nand pass into the present arctic regions of our globe.\n\nAs \"the king never dies,\" so the old southern Ice-monarch will be\nsucceeded by the young northern one, at about the period named. We shall\nthen have a decided advantage over our predecessors, the plants and\nanimals, in their journey southward, since we shall know the exact route\nthey took, and need only follow it. Presumably they had no such\ninformation, nor had they either chart or compass to guide them,--a\ncircumstance which Mr. Darwin has not sufficiently taken into account in\npredicating intelligence of his favorite pedestrians. Besides, these\nvegetal and animal forms had one difficulty to encounter which we shall\nnot experience. With all the northern forms driven down into the Central\nAmerican states, they must have been sadly crowded for room, especially\nnear the Isthmus. The social conifers must have monopolized all the more\nfavored sites on the mountain sides and tops, while the humbler denizens\nof the forest must have contented themselves with still more limited\nquarters. The more impatient animals, for lack of necessary forage, must\nhave crowded through the Isthmus only to be driven back by the tropical\nheats to their proper isotherms.\n\nBut our warm temperate zone is now moving southward, and our scientific\nexpedition is moving with it. The northern Ice-monarch has resumed\nabsolute sway, and our aphelion distance from the sun has increased some\ntens millions of miles. We have, in the mean time, moved down to the line\nof the Gulf states, and are deploying to the right in order to make a\ntriumphant entry into Mexico. Mr. Darwin is daily consulting the\nisochimenals, and is confident that our northern ice-cap will equal Mr.\nCroll's highest expectations. The news finally reaches us that the Gulf\nstream has turned its course southward, and is now pouring its immense\ntreasures of heat into the South Atlantic, if not turning the African\n\"horn\" and washing the far-off Australian coast. This fact greatly\nincreases the enthusiasm of our European party, and they hasten forward\ninto the sub-tropical zone, almost \"violating conditions\" in their haste\nto enter the tropics.\n\nAt length, we crowd the narrow passages of the Isthmus, and the glory of a\nwarm temperate climate bursts upon our view in the Columbian states, of\nSouth America. _The expedition promises to be an entire success_. At\nleast, Mr. Darwin thinks so, and he is now the Sir Oracle of our party. We\ndeliberately enter the lowlands of Columbia, and make ready to ascend the\nsub-tropical mountains--those formerly equatorial--where the \"great\nscientific problem of the ages\" is to be demonstrated. But we are\nmeasuring time by almost _Sirius_ distances, and vast geologic periods\nsweep by without apparent record. The northern ice-cap has been a\nprodigious one, crowding us nearly down to the geographical equator, with\nthe advantage we have of appropriating some five and half degrees of the\nsub-tropical zone.\n\nBut the year Anno Domini 851,800 finally rolls round, and the maximum of\nthe earth's ice-cap is reached. Old Mt. Tolima looms up in the distance,\nand we soon ascertain that its height is sufficient for all scientific\npurposes. Its summit displays a glittering ice-cap, and we are certain to\nfind the proper isotherm by climbing its umbrageous sides. We accordingly\nmake haste to reach its base, and get there not a minute too soon; for the\nyoung southern Ice-monarch has stolen a march on the thermal equator, and\nis driving it irresistibly back to its old quarters. His march northward\nis a continuous triumph and ovation up to 55\u00b0, and the heart of Patagonia\nis made glad by his near approach. True, the white gates of commerce are\nclosed about the Horn; but that is no concern of these wild Patagonians.\nThe aggressive Britton is driven out of New Zealand, and that is another\nsource of joy to the savage breast. Tasmania would extend a gladder\nwelcome than all to the Ice-crowned monarch, but alas, not a drop of\nTasmanian blood runs in human veins! Cape Good Hope has now a sub-arctic\nclimate, and the heart of the wild Kaffir and Zulu rejoices that the\nsceptre of \"perfidious Albion\" is broken.\n\nThe thermal equator at length reaches the base of Mt. Tolima, and hastens\nnorthward to the Isthmus, and thence to Hondurus and New Guatemala, where,\nby sheer force of exhaustion, it comes to a halt.\n\nBut, as the equatorial zone extends fifteen degrees both ways from the\nthermal equator, its southern limit now rests on the geographical equator,\nand accordingly encircles the base of our \"mount of refuge.\" We are now up\nthis mountain some sixteen thousand feet above the equatorial lowlands,\nwith the sub-tropical, tropical, and equatorial zones between us and the\npossibility of our further migration southward, without violating the\nexpress conditions imposed at the outset of our expedition.\n\nThe fact soon stares us in the face that we have been no more successful,\nin our efforts to cross the thermal equator and pass into high southern\nlatitudes, than the stupid plants and animals before us; and Mr Darwin's\nfaith in high mountains springing from equatorial lowlands, disappears in\njest and derision as we all good-humoredly agree \"to break conditions,\"\nand find our way back to the centres of activity and trade in the Old and\nNew Worlds, leaving the great scientific problem of the ages to solve\nitself as best it may. We accordingly descend from our mountain fastness,\nhasten to the coast, and take passage by steamer to Manhattan, the great\ncommercial metropolis of the world. Here we find that the barometer of\nexchange was long ago taken down in London and hung up in New York. The\nOld Antiquarian Society rooms are the first object of interest sought by\nus. On making our way thither we look for a copy of the _Herald_, of the\ndate of our departure, in which we find an account of the scientific\nexpedition fitted out by us, facetiously termed \"_The Great Wild-Goose\nChase after the Thermal Equator_\"--presenting one of the most humorous\nbits of sensational pleasantry ever given to the American public.\n\nBut an apology is due the staider reader for the seeming levity of this\nnarrative adventure. The exposition of Mr. Darwin, though widely accepted\non both sides of the Atlantic by the scientific world, has seemed to us\ntoo trivial for serious reply. If we have leaped over vast periods of\ntime, it makes no difference with the argument. So long as the thermal\nequator, or more properly the equatorial zone, or any part of it, lies\nbetween the warm or cold temperate forms, whether plants or animals, and\ntheir point of destination in the southern hemisphere, they can never\nmigrate thither, any more than the right whale of the arctic seas can swim\nthe equatorial oceans. Nothing is gained by going out of the way to climb\nmountains, except to hopelessly retard the return of both plants and\nanimals to their native zones. If we have not demonstrated this fact to\nthe reader's fullest comprehension, it will be useless for him ever to\nwrite a Q.E.D. at the end of any proposition.\n\nIt is true that some eminent astronomers and physicists hesitate to\naccept the theory that these glacial epochs are due to the eccentricity\nof the earth's orbit. But the argument favoring it is well fortified and\nably advanced, and if we add to the astronomical considerations involved,\nthe physical proofs of a change in the earth's centre of gravity, caused\nby the excessive accumulation of ice about either pole, and the probable\nshifting of the Gulf stream to a southerly direction during the glacial\nperiod north, it is difficult to resist the conviction that the real\ncause of glaciation has been suggested in this theory. With all the ice\nnow accumulated about the south pole transferred to the north pole, it\nwould make an ice-cap of over thirty miles in thickness at the pole, and\none sloping in all directions southward to about 60\u00b0. This accumulation,\nit is claimed, would so change the earth's centre of gravity as to cause\nall the equatorial warm waters to flow southward instead of northward, as\nthey now do.\n\nThis would certainly seem to be a most wonderful provision of nature, as\nwell as one strongly calculated to impress the human mind with the belief\nthat an Infinite _Pre_vision lies behind all possible _pro_vision, whether\nwitnessed in the heavens or in the earth, in astronomical or physical\nphenomena. Everywhere we see infinite perfection, combined with infinite\nbeneficence, in the adaptation of means to ends. Nothing runs to\nwaste--all things are conserved for use.\n\nBut in all the outspoken grandeur of the universe, there is nothing so\ngrand, in exhibition at least, as the simple faith of a child, that \"He\nwho watereth the hills from his chambers,\" and \"causeth the day-spring to\nknow his place,\" will watch over the trustful little sleeper during the\ndarkness and silence of the night.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\nThe Distribution and Premanence of Species.\n\n\n\nProfessor Gray, in his address before the American Association for the\nadvancement of science, delivered at Dubuque (Ia.) in 1872, while\nremarking upon the wide extent of similar flora in the same plant zones,\nsays: \"If we now compare, as to their flora generally, the Atlantic United\nStates with Japan, Mantchooria and Northern China,--_i.e._ Eastern North\nAmerica with Eastern North Asia--half the earth's circumference apart, we\nfind an astonishing similarity.\" But why astonishing? Had our\ndistinguished botanical professors, in this country and in Europe,\nthoroughly informed themselves as to the climatic conditions, the general\nphysical features, geographical characteristics, soil-constituents, and\nother conditional incidences of this Asiatic region, in the light of all\nthe physiological facts before them, the circumstance of this great\nsimilarity of flora would have been anything but astonishing. Indeed, the\nastonishment, if any, would have been expressed at the want of similarity,\nhad it been found to exist.\n\nEver since 1862, these distinguished professors have had the great\nplant-charts of Mr. Arthur Renfrey before them, with the warm temperate\nzone north accurately laid down in its proper isotherms, as well as the\ndifferent classes of vegetation peculiar to the two regions referred to,\nand some general conclusions of value to science might have been drawn\ntherefrom. Besides, the fact of these similar antipodal flora was well\nknown to many of them before this chart was issued. They also knew that\nall along the higher mountain ranges of this country, as well as in\nEurope, the same alpine flora was to be found under the same or similar\nalpine conditions. From Mt. St. Elias, in Alaska, to the Central American\nStates, and thence, through the Isthmus, to the southern extremity of the\nAndes in South Patagonia, there is one unbroken line of alpine vegetation\npressing the sides or summits of the loftier mountain ranges, at altitudes\ncorrespondingly varying with the latitudes in which they occur. And the\nsame is true of the Alps in Europe and the Himalaya ranges in Asia, if not\nof all the mountain systems of the globe.\n\nThese, and hundreds of other equally suggestive facts, all pointing to\ngeographical, climatic, and other influencing conditions, as the real\nobjective points of inquiry, have been constantly before our botanical\nfriends; and yet they have been content with Mr. Darwin's theory of\nclimbing mountains to cross the geographical equator, under the impression\nthat an enormous ice-cap, or rather prodigious \"ice-ulster,\" would\nultimately drift them into the southern hemisphere, or enable them to\n\"coast\" their way thither with the greatest imaginable ease. But why\ninsist upon the migration of plants growing in the lowlands and about the\nbases and sides of mountains, and not suggest some means of transport for\nthe equally beautiful flora, known as \"alpine,\" on the mountain summits of\nthe earth? These are distributed, as we have before shown, over all our\nmountain systems, in all latitudes and in all parts of the globe, as well\nas in the higher regions of vegetation as we approach the north pole.\nSurely, the delicate little harebells of these alpine regions should\nattract some interest, if not sympathy, from those who are constantly\nhunting up means of transport for the more hardy and robust plants that\nseem able to take care of themselves almost anywhere.\n\nWhen the next great ice-cap shall sweep down from the north pole upon\nthese beautiful alpine flowers they will have to travel somewhere. There\nis manifestly as much necessity for them to get out of the way as for the\nrest of the flora. How will they manage to get down the mountains into the\nlowlands, and traverse uncongenial plains and deserts, to find other and\nfar-distant alpine homes? They can never, of course, get very far away\nfrom the regions skirted by eternal frost, for their cup of joy must be\nchaliced by the snow-flake, or their beautiful life is soon ended. But if\nall our alpine flora have traveled from one evolutional centre, or have\nbeen \"created but once in time and place,\" how have they managed to cross\nthe thermal equator and spread themselves out over all the alpine regions\nof the globe? We call upon Mr. Darwin and Professor Gray to rise and\nexplain. Not that we want any explanation, but that their theory of\nplant-migration stands sadly in need of one.\n\nThe theory which the Bible genesis suggests to us is fully adequate to the\nexplanation wanted. It explains not only _why_ these alpine flora appear\nwhere they do, but why they cannot appear anywhere else. It also explains\nall the physiological facts to which we have referred in the foregoing\nchapters. Wherever the necessary alpine conditions exist the earth\nresponds to the divine command, and the beautiful little alpine harebell\nis cradled into life, and rejoices in the bright embroidery it wears. And\nso, wherever streams are turned aside to flow through new meads and\nsheltered woods, or over broken and swaly places where cowslips never grew\nbefore, hardly a year will pass before this \"wan flower\" will hang therein\n\"its pensive head,\" while all along the line of the stream the black alder\nwill make its appearance in the lowlands, no matter how far its current\nmay be diverted from its original channel, or how distant the supply of\nnatural seeds. For nature's sternest painter can only delineate her as\n\"instinct with music and _the vital spark_.\"\n\nIf our botanical professors would come forth into the true light of\nnature, they should accept the position of pupil to her, and not assert\nthat of teacher. So long as they continue to peep and botanize upon her\ngrave, or over ancient mounds and Hadrianic tumuli, they will never find\nout the cunning of her processes, much less the means she employs to\naccomplish her perfected ends. This modern idolatry of \"hypotheses,\" with\nour chronic neglect of what nature _does_, is the great scientific\nstumbling-block of the age in which we live. Our botanists all agree that\ncertain plants and trees disappear--hopelessly die out--from the\n_absence_ of \"necessary conditions;\" when will they come to recognize the\nreverse of this undeniable proposition, and agree that the _presence_ of\nnecessary conditions may cause the same plants and trees to make their\nappearance, that is, spring into life in obedience to some great primal\nlaw, as unerringly obeyed by nature as the attractive force of the\nuniverse itself?\n\nFor nearly half a century the fact has been known that the geographical\ndistribution of the European flora, and especially that of the British\nIslands, was referable to latitude, elevation, and climatic conditions. As\nearly as 1835, Mr. Hewett Watson, a well-known botanist of that day, in\nhis published \"Remarks on the Geographical Distribution of Plants, in\nconnection with Latitude, Elevation, and Climate,\" drew the attention of\nthe botanical world to this remarkable feature of plant distribution;\nwhile the late Professor Edward Forbes pursued the same line of thought in\nhis attempt to show how geographical changes had affected plant areas in\nGreat Britain as far back as the last glacial drift. And yet all our\nbotanical writers have been steadily persisting on immense\nplant-migrations to account for their geographical distribution, and have\ngiven us maps without number to show how the vegetal hosts have traversed\nvast continents, swam multitudinous seas, braved the fiery equator, and\nscaled the summits of the loftiest Andes. In the mean time, no botanist of\nany distinguished note, except M. De Candolle, has confidently ventured to\nquestion this migration theory, so imposing and formidable has been the\narray of names which have frowned down, like so many gigantic ghauts, upon\nthe audacious questioner.\n\nBut the present actual state of knowledge on this subject forbids us any\nlonger to accept theories for facts, premises for conclusions, or\nfallacious reasoning for legitimate induction. Truth and daylight never\nmeet in a corner, and no one, in our day, need go to the bottom of a well\nin search of either. We are forever stumbling over the truth without\nknowing it, because our old traditional beliefs, like so many\nsuperannuated grasshoppers, are constantly springing up in our path and\ndiverting our attention from her. There are physiological facts enough\ndaily obtruding themselves upon our attention, if we would but notice\nthem, in the case of wayside plants, garden and household weeds, and the\nmore aggressive vegetation of worn out pasture-lands, to satisfy us of the\ntruth of our theory, were it not for the swarms of these old traditional\ngrasshoppers continually rising into the air before us, and shutting out\nthe truth as it is in nature. And the worst feature about this whole\nbusiness is, that we have come to regard these multitudinous insects as a\ndelight instead of a burden.\n\nBut it is hardly necessary to pursue this subject further. We have shown,\nor shall show in the succeeding pages, that all crystalline forms come\nfrom necessary or favoring statical conditions; that all infusorial forms\ncome in the same way, only their conditions may be said to be dynamical\nrather than statical; that all mycological forms (fungi) are dependent,\nfor their primary manifestation, on conditions of moisture and decay; that\nall plant-life, from the lowest cryptogam to the lordliest conifer, is\ndependent on some similar incidence of conditions; that the mastodon, now\nonly known by his fossil remains, must have wallowed forth from his\n\"necessary mire\" (plasmic conditions) in the Eocene period; and that all\nanimal life must have come from some underlying law of primordial\nconditions, as impressed upon matter, in harmony with the \"Divine\nIntendment\" from the beginning; and that this law is still operative in\nthe production of new forms of life whenever and wherever the same may\nappear. We shall also show that all living organisms, such as seeds,\nfungus-spores, morphological cells, etc., perish at a temperature of about\n100\u00b0 C., and that _Bacteria, Torul\u00e6_, and other infusorial forms, making\ntheir appearance in super-heated flasks, originate not from morphological\ncells, plastide particles, bioplasts, or any other vital organism, but\nfrom indestructible vital units, which are everywhere present in the\norganic matter of our globe, and ready to burgeon forth into life whenever\nthe necessary vital conditions exist, and the proper incidences of\nenvironment occur.\n\nWe have also shown that the earth still obeys the divine command to bring\nforth, or--if objection be made to this form of statement as\nunscientific--still obeys some inexorable underlying law tantamount to\nsuch command, and can no more help \"bringing forth,\" when the necessary\ntelluric conditions favor, than the cold can help coming out of the north,\nor the clouds dropping rain, when the necessary meteorological conditions\noccur. Give the future American botanist the physical geography of a\ncountry--its average rain-fall, temperature, etc., and the plant zone in\nwhich it lies, and, whether explored or unexplored, he will give us the\ngeneral character of its vegetation, and name most of the plants and trees\npeculiar to its soil. And he will do this, not because he has any faith in\nthe present theories of plant-migration, nor in the necessary distribution\nof seeds, but because he will study his favorite science with reference to\nlatitude, elevation, climate, physical characteristics, rain-fall,\nsoil-constituents, and other influencing conditions of plant-life.\n\nBut we will now proceed to consider the duration of vegetable species, for\nthe purpose of showing that the evolutional changes they are undergoing,\nif any, must cover infinitely vaster periods of time than we have any data\nfor determining, to say nothing of the unverified theories the\nevolutionists have been spinning for us.\n\nOur geologic and paleontologic records are becoming richer in materials,\nmore interesting in details, and more authentic in character, every year.\nWe are turning back page after page of these lithographic records, only\nto find the domain of science widened and deepened in interest as we\nadvance, or as our rocks are being excavated, our mountains tunneled, our\nvast mines explored, and the beds of our rivers and arms of seas\nthoroughfared and traversed by the iron rail. Meanwhile, science exhibits\nsigns of becoming less devoted to new-fangled theories, more exacting in\nher demands upon her votaries, and more eager to extend the domain of\nfacts as the only true basis on which to rest her claims for future\nrecognition. She is less dogmatic to-day than she was a year ago, and is\nlikely to become less so a year hence than now. And this is largely due\nto her methods of research and inquiry. She is now everywhere sending out\nher hardier and more enthusiastic sons into new fields of exploration, to\nreturn laden with ampler materials to build, and richer treasures to\nadorn, a temple worthy of her name. In the field of the fossilized fauna\nand flora, these treasures are of the highest value and interest, all\nindicating not only wide areas of distribution, but immense periods of\ntime, in which species have existed without any greater changes in\ncharacter than the necessary shadings into varieties would seem to\nrequire. For nature everywhere characterizes her methods of production\nand reproduction by a loving tendency to diversify and variously adorn\nher species, as if to express the infinite conceptions of that power\nabove her, which \"spake and it was done, which commanded and it was\nbrought forth.\"\n\nFrom the fossilized plants of Atanekerdluk--a flora rich in species and\nwonderfully preserved in type--and the Miocene flora of Spitzenburg, to\nthe southernmost limits of vegetation on the globe, science has reached\nout her hands for materials, and gathered them with as much success as\navidity. And all scientific botanists agree in referring these fossilized\nforms from the high northern latitudes, to the Miocene period--one so\nremote that we can form no adequate conception of it, except as time may\nbe measured by geologic periods. And these materials show that varieties\nof the _Sequoia_, the tulip-tree, oaks, beeches, walnuts, firs, poplars,\nhazelnuts, etc., etc., all flourished in these sub-arctic regions during\nthe far-distant period we have named. Many of them must have grown on the\nspot where their trunks are now to be found, as their roots remain\nundisturbed in the soil, as well as at a time when these regions enjoyed a\nwarm or cold temperate climate. Many of these fossilized and carbonized\nforms are identical with the living species of to-day, conclusively\nshowing that neither natural variation, nor any secondary causes, have\nworked out any changes capable of being scientifically expressed in\ngenetic value.\n\nThere is also abundant evidence to show that many of the present tropical\nforms flourished in central and southern Europe as far back as the warm\ninter-glacial epoch in the Eocene period. And if these inter-glacial\nperiods occurred at the lowest minimum limits of eccentricity in the\nearth's orbit, as calculated by Leverrier's formul\u00e6, we can have no\nconception whatever of the length of time actually intervening the period\nnamed and our present era. Mr. Croll has given us the limits of highest\nglaciation covering the last three million years, and shows that there\nhave been but two periods of superior eccentricity in that time, and can\nbe only one in the next million years, with but two or three intervening\nmaxima and minima that may, or may not have been, of any special value. It\nis true that he assigns importance to these maxima, as affecting possible\nglaciations, but there are other eminent astronomers and physicists who\ndiffer from him, and really attach little or no importance to these of any\nother intervening periods of eccentricity. If Mr. Croll is correct in his\ntheory and estimates, we must separate these superior glacial epochs by an\ninterval of not less than one million seven hundred thousand years; and\nnearly three of these periods must have intervened since some of the\npresent tropical forms flourished in Europe. And if these forms have\nundergone no specific change in all this time, how many years will it\nrequire to work out even _one_ of Mr. Darwin's many evolutional changes?\n\nThe kinship between some of these arctic and sub-arctic fossilized flora\nand the living forms of to-day, is so near that they cannot be\ndistinguished by a single difference. This is true of some of the\nvarieties of the _Sequoia_ family, the oaks, beeches, firs, hazelnuts,\netc., while others are so nearly identical that it would be difficult to\nclassify them as separate varieties. At all events, if they cannot be\nplaced in the list of identical species, they cannot be ruled out of\nrepresentative types. But why should our speculative botanists insist upon\nthese \"evolutional changes\" in plant-life--these \"derivative forms\" of\nwhich they are constantly speaking? Paleontological botany has given us\nthe very highest antiquity of species, and the most that can be claimed is\nthat nature was just as prolific of diversified forms millions of years\nago as now. Because we, by forcing nature into unnatural, if not\nrepugnant, alliances, can produce\n\n            --\"Streak'd gillyflowers,\n  Which some call nature's bastards.\"\n\nit is no evidence that she commits any such offence against herself. Her\nalliances are all loving ones. She indulges in no forced methods of\npropagation. If she produced the _Sequoia gigantea_, or the great redwood\ntree of our California Sierra, as far back as the Crustaceous period, she\nhas propagated it ever since according to her own loving methods, and it\nis idle to talk of the _Sequoia Langsdorfii_ as being the original\nancestor of this tree, or any other distinguished branch of the sequoias.\nHow much more rational the suggestion of Professor Agassiz that these\ntrees--the entire family of sequoias--were quite as numerous in\nindividual varieties at first as now, and that the fruit of the one can\nnever bear the fruit of the other.\n\nAgain, take the still hardier and more numerous branches of the\n_Quercus_ or oak family. M. De Candolle has expended a vast deal of\ningenuity to show that the various members of this old and\nancestrally-knotty family have all descended from two or three of the\nhardier varieties. He arrives at this conclusion from a geographical\nsurvey of what he would call the \"whole field of distribution,\" and\n\"the probable historical connection between these congeneric species.\"\nBut science should deal with as few probabilities as possible,\nespecially where experience furnishes no guide to certainty, and only\nthe remotest clue to likelihood. We should never predicate\nprobabilities except on some degree of actual evidence, or some\nlikelihood of occurrence, falling within the limits, analogically or\notherwise, of human observation and experience. In no other way can we\ndetermine whether an event is probable or not. But here we have not so\nmuch as a probable experience to guide us. Geographical distribution in\nthe past is hardly a safe criterion to go by, because we can never be\nabsolutely certain that we have the requisite data on which to form a\ndeterminate judgment. The _Quercus robur_ may furnish the maximum test\nto-day, but a few concealed pockets of nature may bring some other\nvariety of the congeneric species to the front to-morrow, requiring M.\nDe Candolle to correct his classification. There are no less than\ntwenty-eight varieties of this one species of oak, all of them conceded\nto be spontaneous in origin, and it has been on the earth quite as long\nas the more stately tribe of Sequoias. Besides, not more than one\ntwenty-thousandth part of the earth's surface has been dug over to\ndetermine the extent to which any one of its varieties has flourished\nin the past.\n\nSince these several varieties are only one degree removed from each other,\nM. De Candolle supposes divergence to be the natural law which has\ngoverned their growth, and not hereditary fixity. But here again he has\nonly remote probabilities to work upon, no absolute data. We are still\nspeaking of his fossilized herbaria, not his modern specimens. These may\nshow a large number of genetically-connected individuals, or those claimed\nto be so connected. And yet no naturalist can be certain that, because\nthey exhibit similarly marked characteristics, the one ever descended from\nthe other; for the universal experience-rule still holds good that \"like\nengenders like,\" and we search in vain for anything more than a similarity\nof _idea_, or logical connection, which justifies a recognition of the\n_individuorum similium_ in Jessieu's definition of species. But similarity\nmust not be mistaken for absolute likeness, which nowhere exists in\nnature. Infinite diversity is the law, absolute identity the rarest\npossible exception. No two oak leaves, for instance, in a million will be\nfound actually alike, although taken from the same tree, or trees of the\nsame variety; and the same may be said of the segmentation and branching\nof their limbs, as well as the striatures of their corticated covering,\n_Et sic de similibus_ everywhere, and with respect to every thing. Nature\nis more solicitous of diversity and beauty, than of similarity and\ntameness of effect, in all her landscape pictures; and the Platonic\nconception that \"contraries spring from contraries,\" may be only a\nsupplementary truth to that of _de similibus_. In the eye of the soul all\nobjective existences are discerned in their logical order, or as\nconsecutive thoughts of the Divine mind, as outspoken in the material\nuniverse. To insist upon cutting down these transcendental forms[20] into\nthe smallest possible number of similar or identical forms, may be all\nwell enough to accomplish scientific classification; but the productive\npower of nature can never be limited by these mental processes of our own.\n\nThe oak family can be traced back to the Miocene period, and consequently\nenjoys quite as high an antiquity as the sequoias. Professor Gray, in\nspeaking of the _Quercus robur_ and its probable origin, says that it is\n\"traceable in Europe up to the commencement of the present epoch, looks\neastward, and far into the past on far-distant shores.\" By \"far-distant\nshores,\" he undoubtedly means Northwest America, where its remotest\ndescendants still flourish. But that these trees should have waded the\nPacific, or sent their acorns on a voyage of discovery after new habitats\non the Asiatic coast, is hardly more probable than Jason's voyage after\nthe golden fleece, in any other than a highly figurative sense. The\nspontaneous appearance of a forest of oaks on the eastern shores of Asia\nwas just as probable, under favoring conditions--though occurring\nsubsequently to the time of their appearance on this continent--as that of\nthe miniature forests of \"samphire,\" or small saline plants, which\nspontaneously made their appearance about the salt-works of Syracuse, when\nconditions actually favored. The high antiquity of the oak makes no\ndifference in respect to the principle of dispersion, since geographical\nconditions are what govern, and not the theoretical considerations of the\nspeculative botanist.\n\nMr. A. R. Wallace's formula concerning the origin of species, that they\n\"have come into existence coincident both in time and place with\npre\u00ebxisting closely-allied species,\" may or may not be true so far as\nindividual localization is concerned. But it proves nothing in the way of\noriginal progeny, nor can we, by any actual data before us, satisfactorily\ndetermine, under this formula, which of the two closely-allied species\npreceded the other. If they came coincidently, both in time and place,\ntheir existence must have been concurrent, not separated by pre\u00ebxistence.\nThe formula may be true to this extent, that the conditions favoring the\nappearance of one species may have equally favored what we call a\nclosely-allied species. But even in this case, the material sequence is\nlost, and we have nothing to express a relationship as from parent to\nprogeny. For, however restricted as to localization, each species\npreserves its own characteristics, the similarities always being less than\nthe dissimilarities. These, and other equally conclusive facts of\nobservation, led Professor Agassiz to question any necessary genetic\nconnection between the different species, or between even the same\nspecies, in widely-separated localities; his idea being precisely that\nadvanced by us in connection with the Bible genesis, that localization\ndepended on geographical conditions, not on the migration of plants or the\ndispersion of seeds.\n\nThe actual geographical distribution of species--any species--does not\ndepend solely on lines of ancestry, however great their persistence of\nspecific characters; nor on any principle of natural selection, nor on the\npossibility of fertile monstrosities, but on the simple incidence of\nconditions; and M. De Candolle, in his \"Geographie Botanique,\" virtually\nconcedes this, while treating of geographical considerations in connection\nwith distribution. He in fact says, in so many words, that the actual\ndistribution of species in the past \"seems to have been a consequence of\npreceding conditions.\" [21] And he is forced to this conclusion by his\nvirtual abandonment of plant-migration, and the alleged means of\nseed-distribution.\n\nThe question after all, says Professor Gray, is not \"how plants and\nanimals originated, but how they came to exist where they are, and what\nthey are.\" On only one of these points--that of favoring conditions--can\nany satisfactory answer be given, except as we defer to the Bible genesis,\nwhich explains all. And the reason is, that we can never determine what\nforms are specific without tracing them back to their origin, and this is\nimpossible. Orders, genera, species, etc., are only so many lines of\nthought on which we arrange our classifications, just as the parallel\nwires of an abacus, with their sliding balls, are the lines on which we\nmake our mathematical computations. Agassiz would not allow that varieties\nexisted in nature, except as man's agency effected them, that is, as they\nwere brought about by artificial processes.\n\nThese artificial processes are quite numerous, and many of them have been\npractised from remote antiquity. But they seem to have no counterpart in\nnature, except as insects may contribute to modifications by the\ndistribution of pollen. But all modifications of this character tend\ntowards infertility, while few plants accept any fertilizing aid from\nother and different species. Any break in their hereditary tendencies,\nresulting in a metamorphosis that involves the integrity of their stamens\nand pistils, is stoutly resisted by nature. In considering the question of\nspecies, therefore, we should confine our observations to those produced\nby natural, not artificial, methods; to plants as propagated by the loving\ntendencies of nature, not by the arbitrary and exacting methods of\nman--those looking to his gratification only. All these fall into the\ncategory, of \"nature's bastards,\" as Shakespeare happily defines them. In\nview of these considerations, and the new methods of classification, such\nas grouping genera into families or orders, and these into sub-orders,\ntribes, sub-tribes, etc., we can readily understand why the great Harvard\nProfessor should have wholly eliminated community of descent from his idea\nof \"species,\" or hesitated to regard varieties otherwise than as the\nresult of man's agency.\n\nIndeed, the whole question of species, as well as varieties, is likely to\nundergo material modifications in the future. On some points the botanists\nand zoologists differ widely already, many making likeness among\nindividuals a secondary consideration, and genealogical succession the\nabsolute test of species. Others, on the contrary, make resemblance the\nfundamental rule, and look upon habitual fecundity within hereditary\nlimits as provisional, or answering to temporary needs only. These\ndifferences of opinion would seem to be the more tenaciously held as the\nquestion of new varieties presses for solution at the hands of nature,\nrather than by the agency of man. All these varieties tend less to new\nraces than to cluster about type-centres, and can go no further than\ncertain fixed limits of variation, beyond which all oscillations cease.\nBut none of these questions touch the real marrow of the controversy as to\norigin, or aid us in determining the duration of species.\n\nThe presence of the two great families of trees--the sequoias and the\noaks--as far back as the Miocene period, if not extending through the\nEocene into the Cretacious, is conclusive of the point we would make, that\nno great evolutional changes have taken place in the last two or three\nmillion years, and none are likely to take place in the next million\nyears, except that the _Sequoia gigantea_ may drop out, from the vandalism\nof man or the next glacial drift.\n\nM. Ch. Martins, in his \"Voyage Botanique \u00e9n Norwege,\" says \"that each\nspecies of the vegetable kingdom is a kind of thermometer which has its\nown zero.\" It may also be said to have its hygrometric and telluric\ngauges, or instruments to determine the necessary conditions of moisture\nand soil-constituents. When the temperature is below zero, the\nphysiological functions of the plant are suspended, either in temporary\nhybernation or death. And so when the hygrometric gauge falls below the\npoint of actual sustentation, the plant shrinks and dies; while, without\nthe necessary conditions, it would never have made its appearance. There\nwas nothing more imperative in the command for the earth to bring forth\nthan the necessary conditions on which plant-life depended in the first\ninstance, and still depends, as we have endeavored to show.\n\nDr. J.G. Cooper, in an interesting article prepared by him at the expense\nof the Smithsonian Institute, on the distribution of the forests and trees\nof North America, with notes and observations on the physical geography,\nclimate, etc., of the country, after classifying, arranging, and\ntabulating the results of the various observations forwarded to that\ninstitution, indulges in the following general observations: \"We have with\na tropical summer a tropical variety of trees, but chiefly of northern\nforms. Again, with our arctic winters, we have a group of trees, which,\nthough of tropical forms, are so adapted to the climate as to lose their\nleaves, like the northern forms, in winter. But, here, it must be\ndistinctly understood, is no alteration _produced_ by climate. Trees are\nmade for and not _by_ climate, and they keep their characteristics\nthroughout their whole range, which with some extends through a great\nvariety of climate.\" The italics are the authors, and we suppose he means\nby \"tropical\" and \"arctic,\" the sub-tropical and sub-arctic.\n\nIn making his general observations, he had before him large collections of\nthe leaves, fruits, bark, and wood of trees from all parts of the United\nStates, including portions of Mexico, the Canadas and Alaska, and\nextending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But one of the most important\nelements--in fact, the _most_ important--is wanting in the tables before\nus, and that is, the elevation at which these thousands of specimens were\nobtained. So great an oversight as this should not have occurred, although\nit may not have been entirely Dr. Cooper's fault. He had his materials to\nwork upon, and may have done the best that any one could with them. And\nyet it is just as important to know at what _elevation_ a particular tree\ngrows in its own plant zone, as to know whether it comes from a sub-arctic\nor sub-tropical region.\n\nBut this was not the comment we designed to make. Dr. Cooper labors, with\nmost professional botanists, under the delusion that all our plants and\ntrees originated in some one \"centre of creation,\" at some period or other\nin time and place, and have been steadily spreading themselves outward\nfrom that centre until they occupy their present areas of distribution. We\nhave no objection to his clinging to this superannuated faith and belief,\nif he derives any pleasure in flushing up these \"traditional\ngrasshoppers.\" But we have a right to insist that he shall be logical. He\nwants it distinctly understood that trees are made _for_, and not _by_,\nclimate. Then his \"centre of creation\" should be everywhere, not a\nlocalized one. For he insists that no alteration can be produced by\nclimate, but that the characteristics of each specific form are preserved\nthroughout its entire range of distribution. But if these nomadic and\nmigratory forms have wandered thus far from their centres of creation, it\nwould seem that the trees had either adapted themselves to the climate, or\nthe climate to the trees. But our Smithsonian systematizer will allow us\nneither horn of this dilemma. He insists that the trees were made for the\nclimate, and that they have preserved their characteristic features during\ntheir entire ambulation upon the earth's surface.\n\nWith the change of a single monosyllabic predicate, this proposition is\nundoubtedly true. We have never heard that plants or trees were \"made.\"\nThey were ordered \"to grow,\" or rather the earth was commanded to bring\nthem forth, which is an equivalent induction. And the fact that they grow\nnow, renders it absolutely certain that they grew at first, when \"out of\nthe ground made the Lord God _to grow_\" every plant of the field, and\nevery tree that is pleasant to the sight. We accept this genesis for the\nwant of a better. And if Dr. Cooper will add to his climatic conditions,\nthe hygrometric and other conditions necessary for the development and\ngrowth of his plants and trees, we will agree with him to the fullest\nextent of his novel position--that trees neither adapt themselves to the\nclimate, nor the climate to the trees; although it is true that trees\nmodify climate quite as much as they are modified by it. The true\nphysiological formula is undoubtedly this:--Trees make their appearance\n_in_ climatic and other environing conditions, and flourish, without\nmaterial change in characteristics, so long as these conditions favor.\n_Why_ they make their appearance is not a debatable question, except as we\nassume a pre\u00ebxisting vital principle, and apply to its elucidation our\nsubtlest dialectical methods. We are told that God commanded the earth to\nbring them forth, after _his_ spirit (the animating soul of life) had\nmoved upon the face of the depths--the chaotic and formless mass of the\nearth in the beginning. Plato has uttered no profounder or more\ncomprehensive truth than this, with all his conceptions of Deity and the\nperfect archetypal world after which he conceived our own to be modeled.\nOur preference for the Bible genesis over the Platonic conception is, that\nit is vastly simpler and constitutes a more objective reality to the human\nsoul. Besides, we find _it true in fact_, since the earth is constantly\nteeming with life, as if in obedience to some great primal law impressed\nupon matter by an infinitely superior intelligence to our own.--\n\n              \"If this faith fail,\n  The pillar'd firmament is rottenness,\n  And earth's base built on stubble.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\nWhat Is Life? Its Various Theories.\n\n\n\nThe question, \"What is life?\" does not lie within the province of human\nreason, the science of logic, or the intuitions of consciousness, to\ndetermine. It furnishes no objective _datum_ on which to predicate\nattributes that are either congruent or diverse. It can only be defined as\nthe coordination of the _vis vitae_ in nature, which is an undisguised\nform of reasoning in a circle. We can ascribe to it only such attributes\nas are utterly inconceivable in any other concept or object of thought. It\nadmits of but one attribution, and that embracing an identical\nproposition. To say of life that it is \"a co\u00f6rdination of action,\" might\nbe true as a partial judgment, but not as a comprehensive one; otherwise,\ncrystallization would fall under its category, which is manifestly an\nillicit induction. It allows, therefore, of no possible explication,\nanalysis, or separate logical predicament. It stands absolutely alone and\napart by itself--a positive, self-subsistent vital principle, or process\nof action, which all physiologists agree, for the sake of convenience and\nuniformity of expression, in designating as a _power, property, force_,\netc., in nature. Whenever questioned as to its origin the subtlest and\nprofoundest intellects, in all ages of the world, have returned but one\nanswer: \"I know no possible origin but God\"--the great primal source of\nall life in the universe.\n\nAmong the ancients we find an almost equivalent induction in the phrases,\nborrowed by them from the highest antiquity, \"_Jupiter est genitor_,\"\n\"_Jupiter est quodcunque vivit_,\" etc., which, although uninspired\nutterances, strike their roots deeply into the _terra incognita_ of\nconsciousness, wherein we ascribe to God the \"issues of life\" as a\nparamount theological conception. When the ingenious and learned Frenchman\ndefined life as \"the sum of all the functions by which death is resisted,\"\nhe was as conclusively indulging in the _argumentum in circulo_ as if he\nhad said, \"Life is the antithesis of what is not life.\" This would be as\nluminous a definition as that which should make Theism the opposite of\nAnti-theism, or the Algebraic statement _x-y_ the antithesis of _x+y_--one\nof no definitional value so long as there is no known quantity expressed\nin the formula.\n\nTo begin with begging the question, and then adroitly whipping the\nargument about a pivotal point, as a boy would whip a top, may be amusing\nenough to the childish mind, but is manifestly making no more progress in\nlogic than to substitute an ingenious paraphrase of a term for its real\ndefinition. It is a mere verbal feat at best, without the possibility of\nreaching any determinate judgment. It is like some of the half-circular\nphrases we are likely to meet with in the categories of modern\nmaterialistic science, such as the \"correlated correlates of motion,\" the\n\"potentiated potentialities of sky-mist,\" the \"undifferentiated\ndifferentialities of life-stuff,\" called, by special condescension on the\npart of the materialists, \"life.\" All of which is an easy logic, but a\nwhimsical enough way of putting it.\n\nAccording to Leibnitz, everything that exists is replete with life, full\nof vital activity, if not an actual mass of living individualities. But\nthis daring hypothesis has ceased to attract the attention it once\nreceived. There are states and conditions of matter in respect to which it\nis idle to predicate the _vis vitae_. For the great bulk of our globe is\nmade up of the highly crystallized and non-fossiliferous rocks, which\nneither contain any elementary principle of life, nor exhibit the\nslightest trace of vital organism, even to the minutest living speck or\nplastid. During all those vast periods of uncomputed time, covering the\nworld's primeval history, there was an utter absence of life until the\nchief upheavals of the outer strata of our globe, now constituting the\nprincipal mountain chains of its well-defined continents, occurred. In\nwhatever atomic or molecular theories, therefore, we may indulge, in\nrespect to the original formation of the earth, the utmost stretch of\nempirical science can go no further, in the solution of vital problems,\nthan to touch the threshold of inorganic matter, where, in our backward\nsurvey of nature, vegetable life begins and animal life ends. All beyond\nthis point must be given up to other \"correlates of motion\" than those to\nwhich the materialists specifically assign the beginnings of life.\n\nThe theory of \"panspermism,\" originating with the Abb\u00e9 Spallanzani in\nmodern times, and still stoutly advocated by M. Pasteur and some few\nothers, is manifestly defective in this,--that it goes beyond the\ninorganic limit in assigning vital units to all matter, even to its\nelemental principles. It is true that they speak of \"pre-existing\ngerms\"--\"primordial forms of life\"--that are \"many million times smaller\nthan the smallest visible insect.\" But their assumptions go far beyond\nthe construction we give to the Bible genesis, which merely asserts that\nthe germinal principle of life--that of every living thing--is in the\nearth, or in \"the waters and the earth,\" which were alone commanded \"to\nbring forth.\"\n\nSome of the panspermists have gone so far as to assert that everything\nwhich exists is referable to the _vis vit\u00e6_--to non-corporeal, yet\nextended vital units, mere metaphysical points--like Professor Beale's\nbioplasts in the finer nerve-reticulations--or living things endowed with\na greater or less degree of perceptive power. This was the assumption of\nthe great German philosopher, Leibnitz, who carried the panspermic theory\nso far as to accept the more fanciful one of \"monads\"--those invisible,\nideal, and purely speculative units of Plato, which go to make up the\nentire universe, extending even to the ultimate elements, or elements of\nelements. Leibnitz says: \"As it is with the human soul, which sympathizes\nwith all the varying states of nature--which mirrors the universe--so it\nis with the monads universally. Each--and they are infinitely\nnumerous--is also a mirror, a centre of the universe, a microcosm:\neverything that is, or happens, is reflected in each, but by its own\nspontaneous power, through which it holds ideally in itself, as in a\ngerm, the totality of things.\"\n\nBut the specific germ theory advanced in the Bible genesis, is capable of\nbeing taken out of the purely speculative region in which \"panspermism\"\nlanded the great German philosopher. It is a simple averment that the\nanimating principle of life is in the earth; that the germs of all living\nthings, vegetal and animal alike, are implanted therein, and that they\nmake their appearance, in obedience to the divine command, whenever and\nwherever the necessary environing conditions occur. The fact that nature\nstill obeys this command is proof that she has the power to do so--that\nthis indestructible vital principle still animates her breast. Innumerable\nexperiments, as well as phenomenal facts, attest the truth of this genesis\nof life, while the researches of Professor Bastian and other eminent\nmaterialists, made in infusorial and cryptogamic directions, confirm\nrather than discredit it. The fact that it appears for the first time in\nthis ancient Hebrew text can detract nothing from its value as a\nscientific statement. Granting that panspermism may rest upon a purely\nfanciful and unsubstantial basis, it is but fair to concede that its great\nadvocates have honestly attempted to explain by it all the vital phenomena\noccurring in nature, as M. Pasteur is conclusively attempting to do now.\nIt is certain that the materialists, who are resolutely antagonizing the\npanspermic, as well as all other \"vital\" theories, have not yet gone so\ndeeply into elementary substance as to shut off all further investigation\nin these directions.[22] Neither the lowest primordial cell, nor the least\nconceivable molecule, has yet been reached by the aid of the microscope,\nany more than the outermost circle of the heavens has been penetrated by\nthe aid of the telescope. We must stop somewhere, and when we find a\nscientifically formulated statement which embraces all vital phenomena,\nand satisfactorily accounts for them all, whether it originally came from\nAristotle, from Plato, or from Moses, is a matter of comparatively slight\nmoment, so far as the scientific world is concerned. At least, it would\nseem so to us. But to talk of the _de novo_ origin of \"living matter\" as\nthe result of the dynamic force of molecules--themselves concessively\n\"dead matter\"--is to indulge in quite as fanciful a speculation as the\nadvocates of the panspermic hypothesis have ever ventured to suggest.\nProfessor Bastian is forced to go back of his infusorial forms and\nfungus-germs to a microscopical \"pellicle,\" from which he admits they are\n\"evolved.\" But why evolved? Does not the principle of vitality lie back of\nthe pellicle, as well as the fungus-germ? How absolutely certain is he\nthat the extremest verge of microscopic investigation has been attained,\nin what he is pleased to designate \"primary organic forms?\" \"Evolution\" is\na very potential word, and no one may yet know what boundless stores of\nabsurd theory and metaphysical nonsense are locked up in it![23] He admits\nthat \"evolution,\" as embracing the idea of \"natural selection,\" can have\nnothing to do with the vast assemblage of infusorial and cryptogamic\norganisms, until they assume definitely recurring forms, that is, rise\ninto species and breed true to nature. Then, he agrees with Mr. Darwin,\nthat the law of vital polarity or \"heredity,\" as he calls it, may come in\nand play its part towards effecting evolution, or variability, in both\nanimal and vegetal organisms, but not before. Why then should he lug in,\nor attempt to lug in, the diverse potentialities of this word \"evolution,\"\nfor the purpose of demonstrating the dynamic law governing the\ndevelopmental stages of his microscopic pellicle? This, he will agree,\nlies far below the point, in primary organism, where specific identity, or\nthe law of heredity, asserts its full recognition. All below this\ndevelopmental point is inconstancy of specific forms, with no line of\nancestry to be traced anywhere.\n\nThis, Professor Bastian readily concedes, notwithstanding it cuts the\nDarwinian _plexus_ squarely in the middle. He says: \"Both Gruithuisen and\nTr\u00e9viranus agree that the infusoria met with have never presented similar\ncharacters when they have been encountered in different infusions; nor\nhave they been uniform in the same infusion, when different portions of it\nhave been _exposed to the incidence of different conditions_. The\nslightest variations in the quality or quantity of the materials employed,\nare invariably accompanied by the appearance of different organisms--these\nbeing oftentimes strange and peculiar, and unaccompanied by any of the\nfamiliar forms.\" Other writers of equal eminence in this field of\ninvestigation have not only observed the same characteristics, but\nencountered the same difficulties in classification, from the very great\ndiversity obtaining even in the nearest allied forms. So great is this\ndiversity, and so multitudinous the different forms, that little certainty\nor value can be attached to the classifications already made. Even\nProfessor O.F. M\u00fcller, after he had convinced himself that he had\ndiscovered not less than twelve different species belonging to a single\ngenus, was subjected to the mortification of seeing Ehrenberg cut them all\ndown to mere modifications of one and the same species.\n\nWe refer to these several statements of fact for the purpose of\nemphasizing the true genesis of life as supplemented by \"the incidence of\ndifferent conditions,\" on which all vital manifestations depend. The\npresence of the germinal principles of life in the earth is emphatically\naverred in the Bible genesis. And we have only to connect the doctrine of\n\"conditional incidence\" with this averment, to account for all the vital\nphenomena which so profoundly puzzle these gentlemen while prying into the\nmysteries of the ephemeromorphic world. Whatever may be the character of\nany infusion, or to whatever incidence of conditions it may be subjected,\nit will produce _some_ form of life; not because it contains this or that\nmorphological cell, destructible at a temperature of 100\u00b0 C--that to which\nit is experimentally subjected before microscopic examination,--but\nbecause every organic infusion, whether undergoing the required heat-test\nor not, contains vital units--those as indestructible by heat as by\nglacial drift--which burgeon forth into life whenever the proper\nconditions of environment obtain. The slightest variation, in either the\nquantity or quality of the material employed in the infusion, is, as these\neminent microscopists agree, invariably accompanied by the appearance of\ndifferent forms of life, just as the slightest change in soil-conditions,\nsuch as that produced by the presence of one species of tree with another\nin natural truffle-grounds, will result in the appearance of another and\naltogether different plant, as well as truffle tuber.\n\nBut the theory which the vitalists are more particularly called upon to\ncombat is that to which the non-vitalists most rigidly adhere; and we\nrefer to it, in this connection, that the reader may compare its\ncomplexity and involution of statement and idea with the extreme\nsimplicity of the biblical genesis, as heretofore presented. We give it in\nthe exact phraseology employed by Professor Bastian: \"Living matter is\nformed by, or is the result of, certain combinations and rearrangements\nthat take place _in invisible colloidal molecules_--a process which is\nessentially similar to the mode by which higher organisms are derived from\nlower in the pellicle of an organic infusion.\" This carefully-worded\ndefinition of life, or the origin of \"living matter,\" presents a\nhypothetical mode of reasoning which is eminently characteristic of all\nmaterialists. In the stricter definitional sense of the word, there is no\nsuch thing as \"living matter\" or \"dead matter,\" as we have before claimed.\nThere are \"living organisms\" in multitudinous abundance--those resulting\n_from_, not _in_, the _vis vit\u00e6_, or the elementary principle of life in\nnature--as there are also \"dead organisms\" in abundance. This\nmaterialistic definition of life, which is not so much as a generic one\neven, begins in an absurdity and ends in one. It is agreed that the\n\"proligerous pellicle\" of M. Pouchet, the \"plastide particle\" of Professor\nBastian, the \"monas\" of O.F. M\u00fcller, the \"bioplast\" of Professor Beale,\netc., are essentially one and the same thing, except in name. They are\nmere moving specks, or nearly spherical particles, which exhibit the first\nactive movements in organic solutions. They vary in size from the one\nhundred-thousandth to the one twenty-thousandth of a second of an inch in\ndiameter, and appear at first hardly more than moving specks of\nsemi-translucent mucus. Indeed, Burdach calls them \"primordial mucous\nlayers.\" But they move, pulsate, swarm into colonies, and act as if they\nwere guided, not by separate intelligence, but by some master-builder\nsupervising the whole work of organic structure. This master-builder is\nthe one \"elementary unit of life,\" which directs the movements of all the\nplastide particles, constantly adding to their working force, from the\nfirst primordial mucous layer of the superstructure to the majestic dome\nof thought (in the case of man) which crowns the temple of God on\nearth.[24]\n\nBut this \"pellicle\" of Professor Bastian is not mere structureless matter,\nany more than the \"bioplast\" of Professor Beale. The fact that they move,\npulsate, work in all directions, shows that they have the necessary organs\nwith which to work. These organs may be invisible in the field of the\nmicroscope, but that is no proof that they do not exist. Organs are as\nessential for locomotion in a plastide particle as in a mastodon or\nmegatherium, and if the microscope could only give back the proper\nresponse, we should see them, if not be filled with wonder at the\nmarvellous perfection of their structure. But into whatever divisions or\nclassifications we may distinguish or generalize the properties of matter,\nwe can never predicate _vitality_ of it, any more than we can predicate\n_intellectuality_. Indeed, \"intellectual matter\" presents no greater\nincongruity or invalidity of conception than \"vital matter.\" These\nqualifying terms are applied to the known laws and forces of nature, not\nto insensate matter. To assert that life results _from_ \"certain\ncombinations and rearrangements of matter,\" and not _in_ them, is utterly\nto confound cause and effect, or so incongruously mingle them together\nthat no logical distinction between the two can exist as an object of\nperception. Without the _vis vit\u00e6_, or some germinal principle of life,\nlying back of these \"combinations and rearrangements of matter,\" and\ndetermining the movements of their constituent molecules, there could be\nno vital manifestation, any more than there could be a correlate of a\nforce without the actual existence of the force itself. [25]\n\nThe materialists give the name of \"protoplasm\" to that primitive\nstructureless mass of homogeneous matter in which the lowest living\norganisms make their appearance. They claim that this generic substance is\nendowed with the property or power of producing life _de novo_, or, as\nProfessor Bastian puts it, of \"unfolding new-born specks of living matter\"\nwhich subsequently undergo certain evolutional changes; but whether they\ndie in their experimental flasks, or rise into higher and more potentially\nendowed forms of life, it is difficult for those following their diagnoses\nto determine. They further claim that the same law of vital manifestation\nobtains in organic solutions as in the structureless mass they call\n\"protoplasm.\" Both are essentially endowed with the same potentiality of\noriginating life independently of vital units, or _de novo_, as they more\npersistently phrase it. But why speak of _unfolding_ \"new-born specks of\nliving matter?\" \"To unfold\" means to open the folds of something--to turn\nthem back, get at the processes of their _infoldment_. It implies a\npre-existing something, inwrapped as a germ in its environment. If not a\ngerm, what is this pre-existing vital something which their language\nimplies? Is our scientific technology so destitute of definitional\naccuracy that they cannot use half a dozen scientific terms without\ncommitting half that number of down-right scientific blunders? \"New-born\nspecks of living matter\" is language that a vitalist might possibly use by\nsheer inadvertence; but no avowed materialist, like Professor Bastian,\nshould trip in this definitional way.\n\n\"Living matter,\" _born_ of what? Certainly not of _dead_ matter. Death\nquickens nothing into life, not even the autonomous moulds of the grave.\nIt implies the absence of all vitality--a state or condition of matter in\nwhich all vital functions have been suspended, have utterly ceased, if,\nindeed, they ever existed. It behooves the materialists to use language\nwith more precision and accuracy than this. \"Dead matter,\" whatever the\nphrase may imply, can bear nothing, produce nothing, quicken nothing. The\npangs of death once past, the pangs of life cease. Nor is there any birth\nfrom unquickened matter. Animals _bear_ young, trees _bear_ fruit, but\nforce _produces_ results. What then quickens protoplasmic matter? Neither\nvital force, nor vegetative force, if we are to credit the materialists.\nThey would scorn to postulate such a theory, or accept any such absurd\nremnant of the old vitalistic school. It is rather \"molecular force\"--a\nphysical, not a vital unit--that gives us these \"new-born specks of living\nmatter.\" [26] This is what they would all assert at once, in their\nenthusiasm to enlighten us on a new terminology.\n\nBut \"molecular force\" fails to give us any additional enlightenment on the\nsubject we are investigating. It is even less satisfactory than \"atomic\nforce,\" or \"elementary force\"--that which may be considered as inhering in\nthe elementary particles from which both atoms and molecules are derived.\nAnd since both the ultimate atom and the ultimate molecule lie beyond\nmicroscopic reach, the assumption that vital phenomena are the result of\neither molecular force or atomic force, rests upon no other basis than\nthat of imaginary hypothesis. To postulate any such theory of life, is\ngoing beyond the limits of experimental research and inquiry, and hence\nadopting an unscientific method. At what point the smallest living\norganism is launched into existence--started on its life-journey--no one\nis confident enough to assert. The materialist is just as dumb on this\nsubject as the vitalist; and the only advantage he can have over his\nantagonist is to stand on this extreme verge of attenuated matter, and\ndeny the existence of any force beyond it. The postulation by him of\nmolecular force at this point, is virtually an abandonment of the whole\ncontroversy. He ceases to be a materialist the moment he passes the\nvisible boundaries of matter, in search of anything like \"undifferentiated\nsky-mist\" beyond it.\n\nAll that we definitely know is that certain conditions of protoplasmic\nmatter, of organic solutions, of soil-constituents, etc., produce certain\nforms of life; and, in the case of solutions, certain low forms of life:\nBut whether the lower rise, by any insensible gradations, into the higher,\nmore complex, and definitely expressed forms of life, is altogether\nunknown. That any such gradations can be traced from the lowest vital\nunit, in the alleged collocations of molecules, is not yet claimed. These\nprimordial collocations, like the lowest living organisms, lie beyond the\nmicroscopic aids to vision, so that the ultimate genesis of life remains\nas much a mystery as ever--becomes, in fact, a mere speculative\nhypothesis. And when it comes to this sort of speculation, the materialist\nis just as much in the dark as the vitalist, and neither can have any\nadvantage over the other, except as the one may adopt the analytic, and\nthe other the synthetic method.\n\nThis is the materialistic argument covering the _de novo_ origin of living\norganisms:--There is no greater microscopical evidence, they assert, that\nthese organisms come from pre-existing invisible germs or vital units,\nthan that crystals are produced in a similar manner--that is, come from\npre-existing invisible germs of crystals. But this is overlooking all\ngeneric distinction in respect to processes or modes of action. Crystals\nare inorganic matter which _form_, do not _grow_. They are mere\nsymmetrical arrangements, not organic growths; and are produced by some\nlaw akin to chemical affinity, acting on the molecules of their\nconstituent mass. They possess no vital function. They show no beginning\nor cessation of life. But, once locked up in their geometric solids, they\nremain permanently enduring forms--concessively inorganic, not\nfunctionally-endowed, matter. To speak, therefore, of the \"germs of\ncrystals,\" is using language that has no appreciable significance to us.\nGerms are embryonic, and imply a law of growth--a process of assimilation,\nnot of mere aggregation.\n\nBut, at the risk of being tedious, let us extend this argument of the\nmaterialists a little further: The only difference, they will still\ninsist, between the pre\u00ebxisting germs of crystals and plants--or the only\ndifference essentially worth noticing--is that crystalline particles of\nmatter are endowed with much less potentiality of undergoing diversified\nforms and structural changes than the more highly favored vital particles,\nsuch as the proligerous pellicle, the bioplast, the plastide, etc. The one\nrepresents mere crystallizable matter, the other the more complex\ncolloidal or albuminoid substance, or that capable of producing a much\ngreater number of aggregates. The analogies, they concede, end here. But\nthe difference is world-wide when we come to processes--the true\nexperimental test in all classification. Crystallizable substances\n_crystallize_--that is all. They pass into a fixed and immovable state,\nand mostly into one as enduring as adamant; while colloidal or albuminoid\nmatter (laboratory protoplasm) takes on no fixed forms--only those that\nare ephemeral, merely transitory. This is so marked a feature, in respect\nto all the primordial forms of life, that Professor Bastian gives them the\nmore distinctive name of \"ephemeromorphs,\" in place of _infusoria_. But\nall these primordial forms grow--develop into vital activity. Not so with\na solitary crystal. Everywhere the statical unit _forms_, the dynamical\nunit _grows_; the one aggregates, the other assimilates; the one\nsolidifies, the other opens up into living tissue; the one rests in the\nembrace of eternal silence, the other breaks the adamantine doors, and\nmakes nature resonant with praise.\n\nGreat stress is laid by the materialists on the changeability of certain\nmicroscopic forms, and the startling metamorphoses they apparently undergo\nin different infusions, especially those forms having developmental\ntendencies towards fungi and certain low forms of alg\u00e6. They attribute\ntheir different modes of branching, articulation, segmentation of\nfilaments, etc., both to intrinsic tendencies and extrinsic causes, the\nlatter depending, no doubt, in a great measure upon the chemical changes\nconstantly taking place in their respective infusions. These intrinsic\ntendencies, they would have us believe, depend upon the dynamic force of\nmolecules, rather than any vital unit, or even change in elementary\nconditions. But \"Dynamism\" simply implies that force inheres in, or\nappertains to, all material substance, without specifically designating\neither the quantity or quality of the inhering force. If these\nmaterialists, therefore, use the terms \"dynamic force,\" in this\nconnection, in the sense in which we use vital force, or in the sense in\nwhich they use \"statical force\" as applied to the formation of crystals,\nin contradistinction from \"dynamical force\" as applied to living\norganisms, we have no special objection to urge against this particular\nformula. It presents no such formidable antagonism as the vitalists would\nexpect to encounter from them.\n\nM. Dutrochet is approvingly quoted by Professor Bastian, as asserting that\nhe could produce different genera of mouldiness (low mycological forms)\n_at will_, by simply employing different infusions. This is unquestionably\ntrue, with certain limitations. And the chief limitation is as to _his_\n(M. Dutrochet's) will. He might \"will,\" for instance, to plant one field\nwith corn and another with potatoes, but if the husbandman he employed to\ndo the planting should happen to plant the one crop where he had willed to\nplant the other, and corn should grow where potatoes were planted, and\n_vice versa_, then he might be said to have produced corn _at will_. And\nso of his infusions. No change in their conditions enabled him to produce\none species, much less a genus, of mouldiness in preference to another, by\nany change in the infusions employed by him. The power which implants life\nin the mycological world, implants it in every other world, from that\nwithout beginning to that without end. And this implanted life is quite as\ncomplete in one form as another,--\n\n  \"As full, as perfect, in vile man that mourns,\n  As the rapt seraph that adores and burns.\"\n\nAll that the materialists can claim respecting man's agency in the\nproduction of life is, that he may take advantage of the uniform laws of\nnature, so far as they are known to him, planting seeds here, changing\nchemical conditions there, using different infusions in his experimental\nflasks,--organic or inorganic, as he may choose--and then await the\naction of these uniform laws. He will find them operative everywhere, and\nif he studies them deeply enough, he will find that they are not so much\nthe laws of nature as they are the laws of nature's God.\n\nProfessor Bastian thinks he has conclusive evidence that what he calls\n\"new-born specks of living matter\" are produced _de novo_, that is,\nindependently of any conceivable germ or germinal principle of life\nimplanted in nature. But he confounds this implanted principle of life\nwith the living organism it produces. His morphological cells, as well as\nplastide particles, are among these living organisms, as is conclusively\nshown by his own experiments. These all perish in his super-heated flasks.\nBut the vital principle that produced them--that which becomes germinal\nunder the proper conditional incidences--he can no more destroy by\nexperimentation than he can create a new world or annihilate the old one.\nHis flask experiments, therefore, prove nothing; and all this talk about\n_de novo_ production is the sheerest scientific delusion. For, were it\npossible to destroy every plant, tree, shrub, blade of grass, weed, seed,\nunderground root, nut, and tuber to-day, the earth would teem with just as\ndiversified a vegetation as ever to-morrow. A few trees, like the gigantic\nconifers of the Pacific slope, might not make their appearance again, and\nsome plants might drop out of the local flora; but the _Pater omnipotens\n\u00c6ther_ of Virgil, would descend into the bosom of his joyous spouse (the\nearth), and, great himself, mingle with her great body, in all the\nprodigality, profusion, and wealth of vegetation as before.[27]\n\nBut these defiant challengers of the vitalists, who refuse us even the\nright to assume the existence of a special \"vital force\" in nature, are\nanything but consistent in their logical deductions. For while they\nresolutely deny the invasion of vital germs in their experimental flasks,\nthey talk as flippantly of the \"germs of crystals,\" and their presence in\nsaline and other solutions, as if there were no scientific formula more\nsatisfactorily generalized than that establishing their existence. Even\nProfessor Bastian speaks of \"germs,\" in a general sense, as if they\nthronged the earth, air, water, and even the stratified rocks, in\ncountless and unlimited numbers. But we fail to see that any of his\naccurately obtained results determine their exclusion from the\nexperimental media employed by him for that purpose. His unit of value is\na morphological cell, a derivative organism rather than a primary vital\nunit; and all organisms are, as we have before said, destructible by heat.\nProfessor Agassiz is pretty good authority for doubting the existence of\nsuch a cell. The difficulty of assigning to it any definitional value is,\nthat it lies too near the ultimate implications of matter--those shadowy\nand inexplicable confines not yet reached--to admit of any scientific\nexplication necessarily resting on objective data. If they mean by \"germs\"\nprimary organic cells, then none exist in their super-heated infusions,\nand they are logical enough in rejecting the idea of their invasion. But\nin assuming the cell to be the ultimate unit of value, is where they trip\nin attribution, and stumble upon a partial judgment only.\n\nThe only value attaching to their theory of crystalline germs is, that it\nconclusively establishes the law of uniformity by which all structural\nforms are determined, whether they originate in organic infusions or\ninorganic solutions--in protoplasm or protoprism. The crystalline system\npresents no variability in types, but a rigid adherence to specific forms\nof definitely determined value. Whatever geometrical figure any particular\ncrystal assumed at first, it has continued to assume ever since, and will\nforever assume hereafter. As a primary conception of the \"Divine\nIntendment\" (to speak after the manner of Leibnitz) it can neither change\nitself, nor become subject to any law of change, or variability, from\neternally fixed types. And this is as demonstrably true of all living\ntypes, after reaching the point of heredity, as of the countless\ncrystalline forms that go to make up the principal bulk of our planet. In\nthis light, and as affording this conclusive induction, the crystalline\nargument of the materialists has its value.\n\nThe materialists should not too mincingly chop logic over the validity of\ntheir own reasoning. If they force upon us their conclusions respecting\nstatical aggregates, or crystalline forms, let them accept the inductions\nthat inevitably follow in the case of dynamical aggregates, or living\norganisms. Beggars of conditions should not be choosers of conditions,\nnor should they be al lowed to dodge equivalent judgments where the\nvalidity of one proposition manifestly rests upon that of another. If\nthey insist upon the presence of a chemical unit, or, worse still, a\ncrystalline \"germ\" or unit, in the case of statical aggregations, they\nare effectually estopped from denying the presence of vital units in\ndynamical aggregations. And if they further force upon us the conviction\nthat the process of aggregation, when once determined, remains in the one\ncase, eternally fixed and certain, they should not be permitted to turn\nround and insist that, in the other case, there is nothing fixed and\ncertain, but all is variability, change, uncertainty of specific forms.\nIf vital units have only a hypothetical existence, then chemical units,\nstatical units, and morphological units, should fall into the same\ncategories of judgment.\n\nA great deal of needless ingenuity has been wasted, both by the vitalists\nand materialists, in formulating impossible definitions of life--in\nattempts to tell us what life is. But Mr. Herbert Spencer is believed, by\nhis many admirers, to have hit upon the precise explanatory phrases\nnecessary to convey its true definitional meaning. He defines it as \"_the\ncontinuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations_.\" This\ndefinition, when first formulated, was received by all the materialists of\nEurope with the wildest enthusiasm. It was absolutely perfect. All the\nphenomenal facts of life fitted into it, as one box, in a nest of them,\nfitted into another. The universal world was challenged to show that any\nother phenomenal fact than the one of life would fit into this prodigious\nformula of Mr. Spencer. The London \"Times\" tried its hand on it, but only\nin a playful way. It said: \"All the world, or at least all living things,\nare nothing but large boxes containing an infinite number of little boxes,\none within the other, and the least and tiniest box of all contains the\ngerm,\"--the elementary principle of life. But this was hardly a legitimate\ncharacterization. A nest of boxes presents no idea of \"continuous\nadjustment,\" nor are the internal relations of one box adjusted to the\nexternal relations of another. The definition is really that of a piece of\nworking machinery--any working machinery--and was designed to cover Mr.\nSpencer's theory of \"molecular machinery\" as run by molecular force.\n\nBut the earth presents the most perfect adjustment of internal relations\nto those that are external, and it continuously presents them. Even the\nupheaval of its fire-spitting mountains affords the highest demonstration\nof the adjustment of its inner terrestrial forces to those that are purely\nexternal; and much more does it show the adjustment of its internal to its\nexternal relations. There is a continuous adaptation of means to ends, of\ncauses to effects, of adjustments to re-adjustments, in respect to the\ncharacteristics of the earth's surface--its physical configuration, the\ndistribution of its fluids and solids, its fauna and flora, its\nhygrometric and thermometric conditions, its ocean, wind, and\nelectro-magnetic currents, and even its meteorological manifestations--all\nshowing a continuous adjustment of interior to exterior conditions or\nrelations. The earth should, therefore, fall under the category of \"life,\"\naccording to Herbert Spencer's definitional formula. And so should an\nautomatic dancing-jack that is made to run by internal adjustments to\nexternal movements or manifestations. There are any number of Professor\nBastian's \"ephemoromorphs\" that do not live half as long as one of these\nautomatic dancing-jacks will run, and so long as they run, the adjustment\nof their internal to their external relations is continuous.\n\nThe success of Mr. Spencer's definition of \"life\" encouraged Professor\nBastian to try his hand at it, with this definitional result: \"Life,\" he\nsays, \"is an unstable collocation of Matter (with a big M), capable of\ngrowing by selection and interstitial appropriation of new matter (what\nnew matter?) which then assumes similar qualities, of continually varying\nin composition in response to variations of its Medium (another big M),\nand which is capable of self-multiplication by the separation of portions\nof its own substance.\"\n\nIt shall not be our fault if the reader fails to understand this\ndefinition--to untwist this formidable formula of life. And we can best\naid him by grammatically analyzing its structure. And,\n\n1. \"Life is capable of growing.\" We are glad to know this. As a vitalist\nit enables us to take a step towards the front--gets us off the \"back\nseat\" to which we were summarily ordered at the outset of this inquiry. We\nlet its \"unstable collocation\" pass for what it is worth, and stick to our\ngrammatical analysis.\n\n2. \"Life grows--is capable of doing something.\" This assurance positively\nencourages us.\n\n3. \"It grows by selection and interstitial appropriation.\" This is still\nmore encouraging. It emboldens us to take a second step forward. Life, we\nfeel, is increasing in potentiality.\n\n4. \"By appropriation it enables _new matter to assume similar qualities\nto old matter_.\" This makes us more confident than ever; we take another\nstep forward--are half disposed to take two of them. Life is getting to\nbe almost a \"potentiated potentiality,\" to adopt the style of\nmaterialistic phrases.\n\n5. \"It causes matter _to continually vary in composition._\" Bravo! we\nunhesitatingly take two steps forward on the strength of this most\ncomforting assurance. Life is assuredly getting the upperhand of\nMatter (with a big M.) It is no longer a mere \"undiscovered correlate\nof motion\"--a hypothetical slave to matter only. It wrestles with\nit--throws it into the shade. We involuntarily take several more\nsteps forward.\n\n6. \"Life is capable of self-multiplication\"--has almost a creative\nfaculty. Here we interject a perfect bravura of \"bravoes,\" and,\nstepping boldly up to the front, demand of Professor Bastian to \"throw\nup the sponge,\" take a back seat, and there--formulate us a new\ndefinition of \"life.\"\n\nBut our London University materialist is not entirely satisfied with his\nown definition, or at least with the moral effect of it. He thinks that\nall these attempts to define life as a non-entity only, tend to keep up\nthe demoralizing idea that it is an actual entity. We entirely agree with\nhim in this conclusion. The infelicity and entire inconclusiveness of the\ndefinition he has vouchsafed us can hardly have any other effect. He sees\nthis himself, and hence this foot-note to his great work on\nEphemeromorphs: \"Inasmuch as no life can exist without an organism, of\nwhich it is the phenomenal manifestation, so it seems comparatively\nuseless to attempt to define this phenomenal manifestation alone--and,\nwhat is worse, such attempts tend to keep up the idea that life is an\nindependent entity.\"\n\nIt may be objected that our grammatical analysis of the professor's\ndefinition of life is unfair, since he manifestly intended that it should\ncover a \"living thing,\" and not \"life\" as an abstract, term. Our reply to\nthis is, that he makes no distinction between the two. Life, with him, is\nsimply a phenomenal manifestation. The two are correlative terms; so that\nhis definition of the one must necessarily be the definition of the other,\neither as an identical or partial judgment. But let us take his definition\nentirely out of its abstract sense, and run it into the concrete. The able\npathological anatomist of the London University college is a \"living\nthing.\" He is, therefore, presumably a phenomenal manifestation. He is\ncapable of growing, by \"selection and interstitial appropriation,\" in\nreputation at least, if not in the direction of \"an independent entity.\"\nHis work of twelve hundred pages, covering his laborious delvings into the\nephemeromorphic world, is conclusive on this point. As a phenomenal\nmanifestation alone, any attempt to define either him or his professional\nlabors, may be worse than useless, since it would tend to keep up the idea\nthat he is an actual London entity. We are very confident that he is not a\nLondon non-entity, but are willing to agree that he is either the one or\nthe other. The flaw that we are after lies in his interstitial logic, not\nin the hallucination in which he indulges respecting nonentities. His\nassumption that life cannot exist without an organism, of which it is the\nphenomenal manifestation, is what we propose to deal with.\n\nNow, directly the reverse of this proposition is what is true. An organism\ncannot exist without life or an independent vital principle in nature, any\nmore than celestial bodies can be held in their place independently of\ngravitation. The vital principle that organizes must precede the thing\norganized or the living organism, as the great formative principle of the\nuniverse (call it the will of God, gravitation or what you may) must have\nexisted before the first world-aggregation. In logic, we must either\nadvance or fall back--insist upon precedence being given to cause over\neffect, or deny their relative connection altogether. The organism is the\nphenomenal manifestation, not the vital principle which organizes it. To\nsay that there can be no _manifestation_ of life without an organism is\ntrue; but to assume that the vital principle which organizes is dependent\non its own organism for its manifestation is absurd. It would be the\nlesser fallacy to deny the phenomenal fact altogether, and insist that\ncause and effect are mere intellectual aberrations, or such absurd mental\nprocesses as find no correlative expression in nature, as that embodying\nthe idea of either an antecedent or a consequent.\n\n\"Plato lived.\" He ate, he drank, he talked divinely. He was the occupant\nof an admirably constructed life-mansion; one that St. Paul would have\nlooked upon as \"the temple of God,\" and all the world would have\nrecognized as a god-like temple. His head was a study for the Greek\nchisel; none was ever more perfectly modeled, or artistically executed.\nAll agreed in this. And yet it was not the _habitat_ but the _habitant_\nthat attracted the admiration of the Greek mind; enkindled its highest\nenthusiasm; drew all the schools of philosophy, about him at once. It was\nthe lordly occupant of the temple, the indwelling _Archeus_, presiding\nover all the organic phenomena and directing all the dynamic powers\ntherein, which was so profoundly present in the living Plato. Even\nProfessor Haeckel, of the famous University of Jena, would not deny this,\nwith all that his new terms \"ontogeny\" and \"phylogeny\" may imply. When\npotential life passed over into actual life in the individual Plato, it\nwas not the pabulum that assimilated the man, but the man the pabulum. If\nthis were not so, then the mere potentiality of growing, as in the case\nof plants and animals, would be all there is to distinguish the\nphenomenal manifestation of a Plato from that of a mole or a\ncabbage-stalk. In other words, if the animating principle of life--or, as\nthe Bible has it, the \"animating soul of life\"--is not what manifests\nitself in material embodiment, but the reverse, what can Professor\nHaeckel mean by his new term \"phylogeny,\" which ought to cover the lines\nof descent in all organic beings?\n\nIf it be a question of mere pabulum, it is altogether _mal pos\u00e9_. Pabulum\nis nothing without a pre\u00ebxisting \"something\" to dispose of it. It is not\nso much as a jelly-mass breakfast for one of Professor Haeckel's\n\"protamoeb\u00e6;\" for if it were served up in advance, there would be none of\nhis little non-nucleated jelly-eaters to partake of it, much less any of\nhis \"protogenes.\" As the famous Mrs. Glass would say, in her \"hand-book of\ncookery,\" if you want a delightful \"curry,\" first catch your hare. But our\ningenious professor of Jena dispenses with both the hare and the curry, in\nserving up his pabulum to the \"protamoeb\u00e6.\" The improvident pabulum\n\"evolves\" its own eaters, and then, spider-like, is eviscerated by them,\nas was Actaeon by his own hounds. As Life, therefore, begins in the\ntragedy of Mount Cith\u00e6ron, it is to be hoped it will end in the delights\nof Artemis and her bathing nymphs.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\nMaterialistic Theories of Life Refuted.\n\n\n\nThe methods by which the advocates of a purely physical origin of life\nseek to establish the correctness of their conclusions, are unfortunately\nnot always attended by uniform results in experimentation. They subject\ntheir solutions of organic matter to a very high temperature by means of\nsuper-heated flasks, the tubes to which are so packed in red-hot materials\nthat whatever air may enter them shall encounter a much greater degree of\nheat than that indicated by boiling water. At this temperature (100\u00b0\nC--212\u00b0 F) they assume that all living organisms perish, especially when\nthe solutions containing them have been kept, for the space of fifteen or\ntwenty minutes, at this standard point of heat. But, in the light of all\nthe experiments which have been made in this direction, there is some\ndoubt as to the entire correctness of their assumption. That many, if not\nmost living organisms, perish at a temperature of 100\u00b0 C, there is little\nor no doubt; but that there are some which are much more tenacious of\nlife, that is, possess greater vital resistance to heat, is equally\nunquestionable.\n\nM. Pasteur, for instance, mentions the spores of certain fungi which are\ncapable of germinating after an exposure of some minutes to a temperature\nof 120\u00b0 to 125\u00b0 C. (248-257\u00b0 F), while the same spores entirely lose their\ngerminating power after an exposure for half an hour or more to a slightly\nhigher temperature. Dr. Grace-Calvert, in a paper on \"The Action of Heat\non Protoplasmic Life,\" recently published in the proceedings of the Royal\nSociety, asserts that certain \"black vibrios\" are capable of resisting the\naction of fluids at a temperature as high as 300\u00b0 F, although exposed\ntherein for half an hour or more. But none of these crucial tests, however\ndiverse in experimental results, really touch the all-important question\nin controversy. They all relate either to living organisms, or to the\nseeds and spores of vegetation, not to living indestructible\n\"germs\"--invisible vital units--declared to be in the earth itself.\n\nWe use the term \"vital unit\" in the same restricted sense in which the\nmaterialists speak of \"chemical units,\" \"morphological units,\" etc., which\nthey admit are invisible in the microscopic field, and hence they can have\nno positive information as to their destructibility or indestructibility\nby heat. That this vital unit lies, in its true functional tendencies,\nbetween the chemical and morphological units--manifesting itself in the\nconditions of the one and resulting in the structural development of the\nother--is no new or startling theory, but one that has been more or less\nobscurely hinted at by Leibnitz, and even acknowledged as possible by\nHerbert Spencer. It is this vital unit that assimilates or aggregates\nprotoplasmic matter into the morphological cell, or the initial organism\nin a vital structure, or an approach towards structural form.\nMorphological cells are not therefore \"units,\" considered as the least of\nany given whole, nor are they mere structureless matter, or any more\nhomogeneous in character than in substance. Different chemical solutions\ngive rise to different morphological cells, as differently constituted\nsoils produce different vegetal growths. Change the chemical conditions in\nany solution or infusion, and you change the entire morphological\ncharacter of the infusoria appearing therein.[28] The cells are living\norganisms springing from vital units, and can no more manifest themselves\nindependently of these units than life can manifest itself independently\nof an actual organism. And they make their appearance in the proper\nenvironing conditions, just as the oak comes from its primordial germ or\nvital unit in the chemically changed conditions of the soil. Everywhere\nthe vital germ or unit precedes the vital growth as the plant or tree\nprecedes the natural seeds it bears.\n\nThis is not only the logical order, but the exact scientific method of\nvital manifestation and growth. In this truth lies the whole mystery of\nvegetal and animal life as hitherto manifested on our globe, with the\nsingle exception of man whose crowning distinction it was to receive \"a\nliving soul.\" This may be rejected as a scientific statement, but its\nverification will appear in the very act of its rejection. Pry as deeply\nas we may into the _arcana_ of nature in search of exact scientific truth,\nand we shall ultimately land in one or the other of these\npropositions,--either that nature was originally endowed with some occult\nand unknown power \"to bring forth,\" which power is either continuously\ninherent or continuously imparted, or else \"specific creation\" was the\npredetermined plan and purpose, with no higher or more specialized animal\nor vegetal forms than were specifically created in the beginning.\nOtherwise, we are inevitably forced back, by our mental processes, which\nwe cannot resist, upon an effect without a cause--a physical law of the\nuniverse without any conceivable law-giver--an all-pervading,\nall-energizing principle of matter which must have existed as a cause\ninfinitely anterior to its first effect. And this is forcing language into\nsuch crazy and paralytic conclusions as to utterly destroy its efficiency\nas a vehicle of thought.\n\nTo conceive of the existence of the universe, or of any possible law that\nmay be operative therein, without an adequate antecedent cause, is as\nmetaphysically impossible as to conceive of substance without form, space\nwithout extension, or a God who has been superceded in the universe by the\noperation of his own laws. For if the world-ordaining and world-arranging\nintelligence of the universe has ceased to ordain and arrange,--if all\nthings therein have been left to the operation of fixed and eternally\nunchangeable laws--then no further supervisional direction is required on\nthe part of either an infinite or a finite intelligence, and our idea of a\nGod must disappear in the paramount induction of a universe which has\nsuccessfully risen up in insurrection against its own maker and lawgiver,\nif it has not remorselessly consigned him to some inconceivable limbo\noutside of the universe itself. But this Titanic, and worse than satanic,\ninsurrection on the part of a universe of matter and motion, is only the\nconjectural coinage of the human brain--the wild supposition hazarded by\nthe materialistic mind--and fortunately has no conceivable counterpart\noutside of it.\n\nBut the palpable blunder, in materialistic science, consists in its\noverlooking the necessary outgrowth of theological ideas in the human\nmind--as conclusively a phenomenal fact of nature as the invariable\nuniformity of astronomical movements, the ebb and flow of the tides, or\nthe electro-magnetic waves of the earth itself. And nature furnishes no\ngreater clue to the one set of phenomena than the other. For when we say\nthat bodies act one upon another by the force of gravity, we are no nearer\nan explication of the force itself, than we should be were we to allege\nany corresponding manifestation on the part of the human mind. Kant says;\n\"We cannot conceive of the existence of matter without the forces of\nattraction and repulsion--the conflict of two elementary forces in the\nuniverse;\" much less can we have any conception of the elementary forces\nthemselves. Science can, therefore, assign no more conclusive reason for\noverlooking psychical manifestations than physical phenomena. Nor is the\none set of phenomena any more marvellous in its manifestations than the\nother. They may both furnish food for speculative thought and inquiry, and\nyet the nearer we get to the ultimate implications of either, the more\ncompletely are we lost in Professor Tyndall's \"primordial haze,\" from\nwhich he assumes that the universe, and all the phenomenal manifestations\ntherein, originally came.\n\nBut however rapidly these materialistic theories may disappear in the\nscientific waste-basket of the future, there is one sublime verity that\nwill stand the test of all time, and that is, that the moral universe of\nGod is no less complete, in the Divine Intendment, than the physical\nuniverse, while the latter is so inter-correlated and inter-tissued with\nthe former, in all its conceivable relations, that it can no more exist\nindependently of its correlative, than matter can exist independently of\nspace, or time independently of eternity. [29]\n\nAccording to this view of Leibnitz, all living organisms have their own\nessence, or essential qualities and characteristics. They have been from\nall eternity in the \"Divine Intendment,\" and can undergo no changes or\nmodifications which shall make them essentially different from what they\nwere in the beginning, or are now. This is not only true of the \"germs\"\nthat are \"in themselves upon the earth,\" but of every living thing,\nwhether lying within or beyond the telescopic or microscopic limits. As a\nlaw of causation, as well as of consecutive thought, there must be in the\norder of life (all life) a continuous chain of ideas linking the past to\nthe present, the present to the future, and the future to eternity. But\nthat this continuous chain is dependent on mere physical changes or\nmanifestations, is a logical induction utterly incapable of being\nexhibited in scientific formul\u00e6. The higher and more satisfactory\ninduction is that which places cause before effect, the Maker before the\nmade, the Creator before the creature, and so on, in the analogical order,\ntill the smallest conceivable \"vital unit\" is reached in the universe of\norganic matter. To begin, therefore, with microscopic observation, at a\npoint in the ephemeromorphic world where that optical instrument fails to\ngive back any intelligible answer, and synthetically follow this chain of\ncausation upward and outward to Dr. Tyndall's \"fiery cloud of mist,\" in\nwhich it is assumed that all the diversified possibilities and\npotentialities of the universe once lay latent, may answer the logical\nnecessities of the \"Evolution\" theory, but will never satisfy the\ninductive processes of a Plato, a Leibnitz, or a Newton.\n\nProfessor Tyndall, in speaking of his \"fiery-cloud\" theory, says: \"Many\nwho hold the hypothesis of natural evolution would probably assent to the\nposition (his position) that at the present moment all our philosophy, all\nour poetry, all our science, all our art,--Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and\na Da Vinci--are potential in the fires of the sun.\" But, to be consistent\nin their inductions, they should proclaim themselves sun-worshippers at\nonce, and ascribe to that transcendent luminary all the potentialities of\na universe\n\n  \"Fresh-teeming from the hand of God.\"\n\nBut what possible advantage, we would ask, can this physical hypothesis of\nlife have over that which ascribes to God the issues of all life in the\nuniverse, from the highest to the lowest living organism? We can\npositively conceive of none but that of placing the cosmological cart\nbefore the horse, and so harnessing \"cause and effect\" _in tandem_, that\nthe latter shall uniformly precede the former in the chain of logical\ninduction. As a dialectical feat, in exhibiting the higher possibilities\nof logic, it may have its advantages in subordinating the facts of science\nto the higher illuminations of fancy, and thus resting the basis of\nreality on the ever-changing and ever-shifting assumptions of the human\nmind. For the materialistic theories of to-day are not those of yesterday,\nnor is there any certainty that they will be those of to-morrow. They are\nalmost as fantastic and variable as the forms of the kaleidoscope,\nalthough, as a general rule, they lack the symmetrical arrangements and\nproportions of that scientific toy.\n\nProfessor Bastian, in considering the heterogenetic phenomena of \"living\nmatter,\" is obliged to fall back, near the end of his great work, on \"the\ncountless myriads of living units which have been evolved (?) in the\ndifferent ages of the world's history.\" But by what process a \"vital\nunit\" can be _evolved_, he does not condescend to tell us. He has no\n\"primordial formless fog\" to fall back upon as has Professor Tyndall, nor\ncan he imagine anything beyond the least of possible conceptions in a\nchemical, morphological, or vital unit. A \"unit\" can neither be evolved\nnor involved; it admits of no square, no multiple, no differentiation; it\nis simply the ever-potent unit of \"organic polarity,\" by which it\nmultiplies effects, but can never be multiplied itself. The chief fault\nthat we have to find with the London University professor is that he\nconfounds a morphological cell with a morphological unit, and insists\nupon drawing unwarrantable conclusions therefrom. His \"countless myriads\nof living units\" are all well enough in their way. That they exist in the\nearth, and are constantly developed into innumerable multitudes of living\norganisms, of almost inconceivable variety, in both the animal and\nvegetal world, is true, as he half-reluctantly admits in almost the\nidentical language we here use.\n\nAnd he also admits that morphological cells, when once formed, continue to\ngrow by their own individual power or inherent tendency. But before they\ncan manifest any such inherent tendency, they must be developed from the\nvital units that lie back of them, and on which their manifestation\nunquestionably depends. The only doubt that can possibly exist on this\npoint is, that the process of development cannot be determined by\nmicroscopic examination. But we may as well assume the presence of vital\nunits in the case of dynamical aggregates, as for Professor Bastian to\ninsist upon crystalline units in the case of statical aggregates or\ncrystals. Both processes, in their initial stages of development, lie\nbeyond the reach of human scrutiny, and all that we know, or possibly can\nknow, is, that certain inorganic conditions are favorable for the\ndevelopment of crystals, as certain organic conditions are favorable for\nthe development of morphological cells. Beyond this Professor Bastian\nknows nothing--we know nothing.\n\nProfessor Beale, in his recent work on \"the Mystery of Life\"--one that is\nnow justly attracting very wide attention--says: \"Between the two sets of\nphenomena, physical and vital, not the faintest analogy can be shown to\nexist. The idea of a particle of muscular or nerve tissue being formed by\na process akin to crystallization, appears ridiculous to any one who has\nstudied the two classes of phenomena, or is acquainted with the structure\nof these tissues.\" And he quietly, yet effectively, ridicules the idea\nthat the ultimate molecules of matter--substantially the same matter, in\nfact--have the power to arrange themselves, independently of vital\ntendency, alternately into a dog-cell or a man-cell, according to the\nspecific direction they may take, or the incidence of conditions they may\nundergo, in their primary movement. And for the benefit of Professor\nBeale, behind whose \"bioplasts,\" we place the \"vital unit\"--not a variable\nbut a constant unit--we would have him bear in mind (what he so well\nknows) that the finest fibres that go to make up these tissues lie quite\nbeyond the microscopic limit in their interlaced and spirally-coiled\nreticulations, so that nothing can be predicated of their ultimate\ncontexture, any more than of the ultimate distribution of matter itself.\nHe has himself traced these wonderfully minute nerve-ramifications under\nglasses of the highest magnifying power, and knows that their ultimate\ndistribution cannot be reached. Let him come out then, as the ablest\nvitalist now living, and boldly assert the presence of the man-_unit_ and\nthe dog-_unit,_ instead of falling back on his bioplastic spinners and\nweavers of tissue, which are only the servants and willing workers of the\none integral unit, or life-directing force, within. It is far more\nrational, and, at the same time, more accordant with strict scientific\nmethods, to attribute these muscular and nerve reticulations to a single\ndirect cause, than to a multitude of secondary causes.\n\nThere is a world-wide difference between the dog-_ego_ and the man-_ego;_\nbut the physical differences are not by any means the greatest. The\nbioplastic spinners and weavers work as obediently for the one\nmaster-_ego_ as the other. They never stop to inquire how far they shall\ndifferentiate this vital tissue or that, or in what direction even they\nshall work. Not a thread is spun nor a shuttle thrown that is not directed\nby the one head-webster of vital tissue. These obedient bioplasts\ndetermine nothing, direct nothing. Each works in his own cell as\nobediently as a galley-slave. All specific modifications, all determinate\nmovements, all molecular arrangements, all multiplications of bioplastic\nforce, are the work of the one vital webster, or principle of life,\nwithin--that which shapes all, directs all, determines all. And this is\ntrue from the first or embryological inception of the dog-unit or \"germ,\"\nuntil the real occupant of the dog-tenement dismisses his bioplastic\nweavers, and lies down to die. And so of all vital units. Each determines\nits own structural form, and unchangeably retains it to the end, even to\nthe slightest impression of a scar inflicted years and years before. The\noccupant of this dog-mansion has dismissed one set of bioplastic weavers\nafter another; has thrown aside this spun tissue and that warp and woof of\nwoven texture, time and time again, so that the dog of to-day is not the\nsame _physical_ dog of a year ago; and yet he has the same affection for\nhis master, carries with him the same scar received twenty years before in\nthe chase, gives the same glad bark of welcome as his owner nears home,\nexhibits the same characteristic wag in his tail, and, lying down to\nsleep, dreams of the once happy chase in which he is no longer able to\nengage. This continuous presence of the same dog, through all these twenty\nyears of physical change--the old dog reappearing in the new, a dozen\ntimes over--is what we mean by the constantly differentiating yet\nundifferentiated \"dog-unit.\"\n\nThose who attempt to bisect this vital unit, divide it up into one\nfractional part after another, until it shall represent a million\nbioplastic workers in as many different cells, are committing the same\nsort of folly--in principle at least, if not in practice--as that which\nled the simple-minded daughters of Pelias to cut up their father, in the\nexpectation of boiling the old bioplasts into new, and then, by the\ncunning aid of Medea, who directed the operation, reuniting them into the\none Peliastic-unit they so much delighted to honor. But this first and\nonly recorded attempt at differentiating a vital unit disastrously failed,\nas the reader of ancient myths well knows, although the experiment was\nconducted by the most careful and loving hands. The necessary chemical\nre-agents to reproduce life, as well as the necessary processes of\nproducing it _de novo_ have not yet been ascertained, nor is it likely\nthey ever will be. And herein lies the most marked distinction between\ncrystallizable matter and living substance.\n\nAnd yet there is no evidence that the vital principle perishes in the\ndestruction of its temporary organism. It is not the material seed that\ngerminates, but the vital principle it contains, bursting forth from its\nenvironment into newness of life. All that can be alleged of either boiled\nor calcined seeds is, that the material substances of which they were\ncomposed are so changed in their chemical constituents, or molecular\nadjustment, that they are no longer capable of developing, or being\ndeveloped, into a living organism. \"Principles never die,\" and this is as\ntrue of the vital principles in nature, as those obtaining in ethics and\nmorals. Were it possible to restore the exact chemical conditions and\nconstituent particles of the boiled or calcined seed, there is no more\ndoubt that nature would respond to the environing conditions, and give\nforth the proper expression of plant-life, than there is that crystals of\nspar would make their appearance in an overcharged bath chemically\nprepared for that purpose. It is not the albuminous substance enclosed in\nthe seed, but the vital principle therein--that continuously imparted to\nnature from the great vital fountain of the universe--which burgeons forth\ninto life whenever and wherever the required conditions obtain.\n\nIn proof of this statement, we might instance any number of cases where\nrecently abandoned brick-yards and other clayey excavations, were situated\nat considerable distances from any natural water-courses, or fish-stocked\nponds, from which spawn could have been derived, and yet these excavations\nhave no sooner been filled with permanently standing rain water, than\ncertain small fishes of the _Cyprinidae_ and other families, have made\ntheir appearance therein.[30] Nobody has thought of stocking these\nstanding pools of water with the fish in question, nor has there been any\nsurface overflow to account for their presence, nor any other apparent\nmeans of transportation, if we except the fish-catching birds, and they\ngenerally swallow their food in the water or on the nearest tree to the\npoint of capture. Any theory accounting for the presence of spawn is,\ntherefore, out of the question. This spawn must have traversed hard clay\ndeposits for the distance of half a mile or more to make their appearance\nin these waters. The only possible explanation of this class of phenomena,\nand they are by no means infrequent, is to be found in \"favoring\nconditions\" and the \"presence of vital units.\" They are primordial\nmanifestations of life, and such as would have made their appearance in\nany corresponding latitude of the southern hemisphere, under the same\nfavoring conditions.\n\nAnd this is true of all living organisms from the lowest morphological\ncell, in the ichthyologic world, to the highest and lordliest conifer that\ngrows. Their spawn and seeds are perishable by heat, but the vital\nprinciple that organizes them is as imperishable in one element as\nanother. No seven-times heated furnace, much less the experimental flasks\nof the physicist, will affect a vital principle of nature any more than a\nMay-morning puff of the east wind would shake Olympus. And all the\ncountless myriads of vital units in nature are now manifesting themselves\nin animal and vegetal forms, under favoring conditions, the same as in\nthose far-distant epochs of the world's history when a more exuberant\nvegetation prevailed, if not a more abounding animal life. The same\npersistent, ever-acting law of vital development and growth has been\npresent, in all conditions and circumstances of matter, ever since the\ndetritus of the silicious rocks felt the first influence of the rains, the\ndews, and the sunlight. Then the earth commenced \"to bring forth the\ngrass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-trees yielding fruit, after\nhis kind;\" and in their growth was laid the foundation of animal life.\nWhether there was any audible or inaudible command of God uttered at the\ntime, is not the question. It is the _fact_ of vital growth that we are\nafter, and not the command. The geologic records attest the fact, as well\nas the ever-acting vital law; and it is enough for us to know, with sturdy\nold Richard Hooker, that all law--and especially all _vital_ law--\"has her\nseat in the bosom of God, and her voice is the harmony of the world.\"\n\nProfessor Beale, while resolutely combating the physical hypothesis of\nlife, is not a little unfortunate in his use of scientific terms. He is\nconstantly using those of \"living matter\" and \"dead matter,\" as if they\ncontained no fatal concession to the materialists, with which to\ncompletely overthrow his own ultimate conclusions as to life. For he gains\nnothing by merely substituting \"bioplasm\" and \"bioplasts\" for \"protoplasm\"\nand \"plastide particles.\" The essential plasma in both cases is the same,\nand behind each lies the vital unit or principle therein manifested--the\ninvisible, indestructible germ or ZRA of the Bible genesis. Living\norganisms come, of course, from this essential plasma, but without an\nelementary principle or vital unit therein, there would be no \"bioplasts,\"\nin the sense in which Professor Beale uses this term. These bioplasts are\nliving organisms which take up nutrient matter and convert it by\nassimilation into tissues, nerves, fibres, bones, etc.--into the higher\nand more complex organs that go to make up living structure. This\nmysterious transmutation of one thing into another, as organic matter into\nliving organisms, is due to a vitally implanted principle, not to these\nlittle bioplasts, or mere epithelial and other tools with which the vital\nprinciple works. To apply the term \"living matter\" to the tools with which\na living structure is built up, is to lose sight of the master-mechanic\nusing them for an apparently intelligent purpose. The microscope may\ndemonstrate that these little bioplasts throb--have life; but there is no\nintelligent purpose manifested by them except as they are moved by an\nunseen hand that conclusively directs the whole structural work--builds up\nthe one complete symmetrical structure, not its thousand independent parts\nhaving no relation to a general plan. The future lord and occupant of the\nmansion is presumably present, and if he uses tools that \"throb and have\nlife,\" it is because everything he touches is quickened into life that it\nmay be the more obedient to his will. If this structure be the\nsoul-endowed one of man, the vital principle imparted is that which\nfashions the epithelial tools, and uses them, as well in laying the\nembryological foundation, as in crowning its work with that many-colored\n\"dome of thought flashing the white radiance of eternity.\"\n\nMr. Joseph Cook, who enthusiastically follows Professor Beale in his\ntheory of life, in one of his \"Boston Monday Lectures,\" says; \"It is\nbeyond contradiction that we know that these little points ('bioplasts')\nof structureless matter spin the threads, and weave the warp and woof, of\norganisms.\" With all due respect to this distinguished lecturer, we must\nexcept to not less than three points in as many lines of his\nover-confident statement. In the first place, we know nothing respecting\nthe \"beginnings of life,\" which may not be contradicted with some show of\nreason. Take his own definition of \"bioplasts,\" as copied from Professor\nBeale, coupled with what they both term \"nutrient matter\" and \"germinal\nmatter,\" or bioplasm, and this confident assertion of his will land him at\nonce where the highest powers of the microscope fail to give back any\nintelligible answer, or where neither assertion nor contradiction avails\nanything. A bioplast, they tell us, is a germinal point in germinal matter\nor bioplasm. It is also assumed that the central portion of every cell in\nan organic tissue is a bioplast. Here this wonderful little weaver of\ntissue sits spinning his threads and weaving them into the warp and woof\nof \"formed matter\"--that which, according to Professor Beale, becomes\n\"dead matter\" as soon as it is woven! But it is admitted that the nerve\nfibres constitute an uninterrupted network which admits of no\nendings--that is, whose ultimate reticulations lie beyond the microscopic\nlimit. But there is a cell in every hundredth part of an inch of these\nultimate reticulations, in each of which one of these bioplastic weavers\nsits plying his threads into the warp and woof of nerve tissue, if not of\nnerve force. What is known of these little weavers, either by Mr. Joseph\nCook or Professor Lionel S. Beale? Manifestly nothing, unless they have\nbeen specially favored with microscopes of over 2,800 diameters--the\nhighest yet made,--and have fathomed the ultimate implications of nerve\nforce; an assumption on the part of the Boston lecturer to which we are\nbound to except.\n\nNor are these \"bioplasts\" mere structureless matter, however minute they\nmay be as \"little points.\" They differ only from \"morphological cells,\" in\nthe definitional language employed by different theorists, and lack the\nall-essential accuracy of distinction necessary to scientific\nclassification. To define a bioplast as a germinal point in germinal\nmatter, or bioplasm, is to draw no satisfactory line of distinction\nbetween the two, except that the one is a mere aggregation of the other. A\ngerminal mass is only made up of germinal points--those considered as the\nleast of any given whole--however infinitesimal they may be in theoretical\nstatement. If any germinal point in germinal matter, therefore, be a\nbioplast, then every germinal point, to the extent of making up its entire\nmass, must be a bioplast; and the distinction between the two becomes\nmerely verbal, and without generic signification. But every morphological\ncell is conceded to be an organism, whether it lie within or beyond the\nmicroscopic limit. And it invariably exhibits a greater or less amount of\ncellular activity at its centre. It grows rather than spins; it builds up\ntissue, rather than weaves it into warp and woof; it assimilates nutritive\nmatter rather than plies a loom in any conceivable sense in which we may\nview that industrial machine. No matter what we may call this point of\nvital activity in a cell--whether it be a bioplast, a plastid, a\nphysiological unit, or a granule of \"elementary life-stuff\"--it simply\nperforms the one single function of life to which it is specifically\nassigned in the process of \"building up\" any one identical individual of a\nspecies, whether it be a man, an ape, a tree, or a parasitic fungus. The\nvery admission that the bioplast spins, makes it an organism, and not mere\nstructureless matter. For the first thread it spins is manifestly for its\nown covering or the ornamentation of its own cell-walls. And to speak of\nthese as \"structureless matter\" is to confound all scientific sense, as\nwell as meaning.\n\nThe third objection to Mr. Cook's statement is, that if bioplasts spin, it\nis as dependent, and not as independent machines or agencies. There are\nmillions of these bioplasts--taking the word in the sense in which\nProfessor Beale uses it--in every living organism considered as a\nbiological whole. In the case of man, there are millions of them within a\ncomparatively small compass; and each has its own cell to which its\nspecific work is assigned. Now, these germinal points, or bioplasts, in\neach of these myriads of cells, work, not separately and independently,\nlike so many oysters in their respective shells, but harmoniously and\ntogether, as if under the supervisional direction of one supreme architect\nand builder. This builder is that one elementary principle of life,\nappertaining to each specific individual as a species, with which nature\nwas endowed from the beginning, and which, in the case of man, was a\ndirect emanation from Deity. It is this vital principle manifesting itself\n_in_ all living organisms, not _from_ them; directing Professor Beale's\n\"bioplastic weavers,\" not directed by them; availing itself of necessary\nplasmic conditions, if not giving rise to them in the first instance;\nobserving no developmental processes by which one form of life laps over\nupon another, and following no order but that of universal harmony in the\nDivine intendment. There is struggle and rivalry for existence, even among\nthe same classes, orders, genera, and species, and the smallest and\nweakest must give place to the largest and strongest everywhere, and _vice\nversa_, as Time, the greatest of all rodents, gnaws away at the mystical\ntree of life. But in every living organism, from the lowest and simplest\nto the highest and most complex, all bioplastic spinners of filamentous\ntissue, all plastide weavers of membranous or spun matter, all epithelial\nbobbin-runners, and other anatomical helpers and workers, perform their\nrespective tasks under the special supervision we have named, that is,\nunder the higher unit of life. They all work for the advancement and\nwell-being of the higher organism of which they form a component and\nnecessarily subordinate part.\n\nThe fact that Professor Beale has discovered that what he calls bioplasm\nand germinal points or bioplasts may take on a distinct and separate color\nfrom tissue, when subjected to a solution of carmine in ammonia, is no\nevidence that he has penetrated the adytum of this sacred temple of Life,\nwherein lies the \"mystery of mysteries.\" It is an important discovery so\nfar as tracing tissue is concerned, but it admits him into no higher\nmystery within the temple built by God than another may attain to by the\naccidental discovery that the tissues may take on the same color in some\nother solution--by no means an improbable discovery. Carmine in ammonia is\nnot the only solution that may aid science in the investigations now being\ncarried forward by the vitalists and non-vitalists with so much bitterness\nand asperity of feeling between them; and now that Professor Beale has\nmade _his_ happy discovery, it is by no means certain that some other\nequally persistent worker in this interesting field of inquiry may not hit\nupon quite as happy a discovery in the same or some equivalent\ndirection--one that shall throw the bioplasmic theory as far into the\nshade as Mr. Cook thinks the bioplasts have already thrown the cells.\n\nBut decidedly the most objectionable statement of Professor Beale,\nalthough one confidently re-affirmed by our \"Boston Monday Lecturer,\" is\nthat which makes bioplasm and bioplasts the only \"living matter.\" We have\nalready referred to the phrases \"living matter\" and \"non-living matter\" as\naltogether objectionable in biological statement, since they are more than\nhalf-way concessions to the materialists, who contemptuously order the\nvitalists to take a \"back seat\" in the discussions now going forward as to\nthe true origin of life. But the objection we here make is less technical,\nand touches a far more vital point in the inquiry. It is true that\nProfessor Beale speaks of \"formed matter,\" as if it were a peculiar\nsomething--a sort of _tertium quid_--between living and non-living matter.\nBut he distinctly avers that the substance which turns red in his carmine\nsolutions is the \"only living matter,\" and hence asserts, inferentially at\nleast, that all other matter, in any and every living organism, is \"dead\nmatter.\" But we may just as confidently aver that no matter is living in\nany vital organism which has not been assimilated and built up into living\nmembranous tissue capable of responding (in the case of man) to his will,\nas well as performing the autonomous functions of plants and the lower\nanimals. For all these membranous tissues are innumerably thronged with\nbioplasts or plastide particles, not for the purposes of obedience to\nman's will, or of performing any autonomous function, but simply to supply\nthe tissues with the necessary nutrient matter to make up for the constant\nwaste that is going on in a healthy living organ. This waste is very much\ngreater than has heretofore been supposed, so that the man or animal of\nto-day may be an entirely distinct and separate one, considered\nmaterially, from that of a year or more ago. And this averment would have\na decided advantage over Professor Beale's, since, in meeting a friend, we\nmight be certain that four-fifths of him at least was alive, while the\nother one-fifth was industriously at work to keep him alive, instead of a\nstalking corpse, as he would otherwise be, upon the street. Besides, it\nwould obviate the necessity, on the part of the vitalists, of giving\nthemselves four-fifths away to the materialists, as Professor Beale\nvirtually does in the argument.\n\nThe too rude touch of a child's hand will rob the canary bird of its\nlife--stifle its musical throat, hush its most ecstatic note, still its\nexquisite song, and render forever mute and silent its voice. But where\nare Professor Beale's bioplasts which, but a moment before, were not only\nweaving the nerves, tissues, muscles, bones, and even the wonderful\nplumage of this canary bird, but plying the invisible threads of\nsong--throwing off its chirps, carols, trills, quavers, airs, overtures\nand brilliant _roulades_, as if the little vocalist had caught its\ninspiration from the very skies? Where, we repeat, are these bioplasts\nnow? They are all quietly and industriously at work as before. The\noccupant of the song-mansion is gone, but not one of these bioplasts has\ndropped a clew, thrown down a shuttle, abandoned a loom, or fled in dismay\nto the core of its cell. They still pulsate, throb, throw off tissue. No\nchemical change has yet intervened to break down their cell-walls, or\ninterfere with the occupations assigned them. The machinery that ran their\nlooms is stopped--that is all. The invisible shuttles have ceased to\nply--the meshes of their tangled webs are broken--the more delicate\nthreads of song are snapped in sunder, but the bioplastic spinners and\nweavers are all there. Not one of them has been displaced from its seat,\nnor in any way disturbed or molested in its work. If they are conscious of\nany danger, it is that the occupant of this little song-mansion has\nsuddenly stepped out--is no longer present to direct their tasks. The icy\nhand of decay and death will soon be upon them--these poor bioplastic\nweavers of tissue--but the vocal spark, the \"bright gem instinct with\nmusic,\" is beyond the reach of these dusky messengers. _Where_ it is, not\nman, but the Giver of all life knows. We only know, when our faith is\nuplifted by inspiration, that--\n\n  \"The soul of music never dies,\n     Nor slumbers in its shell;\n  'Tis sphere-descended from the skies,\n     And thence returns to dwell.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter IX.\n\nForce-Correlation, Differentiation and Other Life Theories.\n\n\n\nAmong the more startling, if not decidedly brilliant, vital theories which\nhave been advanced within the last few years, is that which makes life an\n\"undiscovered correlative of force.\" Those who have the reputation of\nbeing the profoundest thinkers and delvers in the newly-discovered realm\nof Force-correlation in Europe, and who have more or less modestly\ncontributed to that reputation themselves, have evidently thought to\neclipse, if not to entirely throw into the shade, the great exploit of\nLeverrier, in pointing out the exact place in their empirical heavens\nwhere the superior optics of some future observer shall behold, in all its\nglory, this \"undiscovered correlative of force,\" which they have indicated\nas lying within the higher possibilities and potentialities of matter.\nPrecisely what they mean by this undiscovered correlate, is what puzzles\nus quite as much to determine as it does the materialists to explain. Were\nthey to define life as an \"undiscovered force\" simply, their definition\nwould manifestly lack in brilliancy what it would conclusively make up in\nprecision and accuracy of definitional statement. But such a poor\nmetaphrastic and half-circular exposition of vital force would never\nanswer the necessities of that profounder profundity required for the\nsuccess of modern scientific treatises. Hence the interpolation of this\n\"correlative\" of theirs. Let us ascertain, if we can, what it means, since\nthey are so chary of informing us themselves.\n\nA \"correlate\" of a thing--any thing--simply implies the reciprocal\nrelation it bears to some other thing. As a cognate term it expresses\nnothing, can express nothing, but reciprocity of relationship, such as\nfather to son, brother to sister, uncle to aunt, nephews to nieces, etc.\nAs applied to vital force, it means nothing more nor less than that this\nparticular force stands in some sort of relationship to the other forces\nof nature, or, as they would have us believe, the _material_ forces of\nnature. And the simple strength or potentiality of this relationship is\nwhat makes all the difference between the severally related forces of the\nuniverse, since it would be as impossible to differentiate a fixed\nrelationship as to change the nature of vital units. But whether vital\nforce, as a distinct correlate, is paternal or filial, brotherly or\nsisterly, avuncular or amital in its relationship, is not stated. The\nscientific formula, however, may be stated thus: As A (chemical force) is\nto B (molecular force) so is C (a third known force) to _x_ (the vital or\nunknown force); so that, by multiplying the antecedents and consequents\ntogether, and eliminating the value of _x_, we may mathematically obtain\nthe value of vital force.\n\nBut to eliminate the value of _x_ is what troubles them. Herbert Spencer\nhas tried his hand at it, but failed to express life under any higher\ncorrelation than \"molecular force;\" nor can he definitely inform us\nwhether either force is third or fourth cousin to the other. But he\nmanifestly regards their relationship as constituting either a very\nattractive or highly repulsive force. In his vexation at not finding the\nvalue of _x_, he is driven from mathematical to mechanical biology, and\ngives us this new definitional value of life--that singularly\ncontumacious quantity which so persistently refuses to be eliminated in\nscientific equations: \"Life is molecular machinery worked by molecular\nforce.\" But as Professor Beale has utterly demoralized, if not\ndemolished, this machinery, in his recent treatise on \"The Mystery of\nLife,\" we will spare it any further blows, and proceed to the\nconsideration of \"molecular force.\"\n\nBefore we proceed however, to the consideration of this force, let us\ndefinitely understand the meaning of the terms we shall be called upon\nto use. We can have no difficulty in understanding the meaning of\n\"molecular attraction,\" or that force acting immediately on the\nintegrant molecules or particles of a body, as distinguished from the\nattraction of gravitation which acts at unlimited distances. But when it\ncomes to ascribing other and higher manifestations of power to\nmolecules, such as have not been scientifically shown to exist, we must\nfeel our way with caution, and demand of these pretentious molecules, or\nrather of their materialistic backers, a reason for the faith, or rather\nforce, that is in them.\n\nIt is agreed by all physicists, as well as chemists, that a \"molecule\" is\nthe smallest conceivable quantity of a simple or compound substance, as an\n\"atom\" is the smallest conceivable quantity of an element which enters\ninto combination with other elements to form material substance. For\ninstance, the smallest conceivable quantity of water is a molecule, while\nthe smallest conceivable quantity of either of the two elements of which\nwater is composed, is an atom. In every molecule of water, therefore,\nthere are three elementary atoms, two of hydrogen and one of oxygen. And\nsince a molecule, as a general rule, contains two or more atoms, and may\ncontain many of them, why not predicate dynamic force of the atoms, which\nlie one step nearer the elementary forces of nature? For the mightiest\nforces of nature lie in these elements, when forced into unnatural\nalliances, or chained up in durance vile. It is in the elements of matter,\nand not in its molecules, that this tremendous dynamic force resides. Man,\nknowing this, harnesses them into his service, first by forcing them into\nunnatural alliances, as in the case of charcoal, sulphur and saltpetre,\nand then successfully pitting them in conflict against the rocks and the\ngeneral inertia of matter. To charge all the destructive work they do on\nthe innocent and harmless molecules, which are two steps removed from the\nactual force expended, is drawing conclusions from the sheerest\nhypothetical data. It is the office of \"molecular force,\" if there is any\nmeaning to the term beyond what is expressed by \"molecular attraction,\" to\nconserve matter--bind rocks together, not rend them in sunder.\n\nIf the dynamic forces of nature lie pent up in the molecules, then man\nmust array molecular force against molecular force in order to rend rocks\nand tear mountains in sunder. This theory of molecular force, as extended\nto vital physics in the force-doctrine of life, is irreconcilably at war\nwith the principal phenomena of life, and should be classed with the other\nundiscovered correlates of force, which Professor Beale speaks of as \"the\nfictions of a mechanical imagination.\" The truth is that these much abused\nand much slandered molecules are the most innocent and harmless things in\nnature. They never become destructive unless some other force than that\ninhering in themselves drags them into its service and hurls them along a\ndevastating path. Of themselves, they are the very quintessence of\nquiessence in the universe, and, when formed in nature's laboratory, at\nonce seek quiet and loving companionship with kindred molecules, and\nretain it forever afterwards. The idea that they should break away from\ntheir loving molecular embrace, and, by any process of differentiation or\nconstructive agency of their own, seek an alliance with some living\ndog-germ in order to be built up into living dog-tissue, presents about as\nperverse and wayward an impulse on the part of matter as can well be\nimagined by the scientific mind. That the dog-germ should seek to get hold\nof, and differentiate them, we can well understand. The Circean witchery\nand enticement is all on the part of the dog-germ, not in the inclination\nof the molecules.\n\nIf there is any truth in this molecular-force-theory of life, it is about\ntime for us to discard some of the old categories respecting matter,\nmotion, and life, and substitute new ones in their place. In the\nmultiplicity of new scientific terms constantly springing up for\nrecognition in these days, there ought to be no difficulty in expressing\nthe true categories, and assigning to them their proper definitional\nvalue. To include physical force, chemical force, molecular force, and\nvital force all under one and the same category, and then interpret their\nseveral modes of action on any theory of force-correlation, is not\nemancipating language from the gross thraldom into which their \"molecular\nmachinery\" has driven it. Besides, there is moral force, mental force, the\nforce of will, the force of reason, the force of honesty, the force of\nfraud, etc., and any number of other forces, all possessing more or less\nimpetus or momentum, and capable of binding or coercing persons and\nthings, in all their diversified relations, correlations, incidences,\ncoincidences, affinities, antagonisms, and so on through an interminable\nchapter of interchangeable predications. All these different expressions\nof force are to be tethered together--definitionally bound hand and\nfoot--under the one explanatory head of \"force-correlation.\" We protest\nagainst the labor of thus unifying all the natural forces of the universe,\neven if it were practicable under scientific methods.\n\nBut Professor Tyndall denies that \"molecular groupings\" and \"molecular\nmotions\" explain anything--account for anything--in the way of explicating\nlife-manifestations, or determining what life is.[31] And it would be\ndifficult to cite a stronger and more determined materialist as authority\non the point we are considering. He says: \"If love were known to be\nassociated with a right-handed spiral motion of the molecules of the\nbrain, and hate with the left-handed, we should remain as ignorant as\nbefore, as to the cause of motion.\" But there is no proof that the\nmolecules of the brain manifest any other motions than those necessary for\nkeeping up the normal condition of health and vital activity in the brain\nitself. No one can be certain that he has seen these molecules in a state\nof mental activity; for where portions of the human brain have been\nexposed to microscopic examination, even in perfect states of\nconsciousness on the part of those whose brains have been laid bare, there\ncan be no certainty that the molecular action, if any, is referable to one\nset of movements more than another. And even in the case of animalcules,\nas seen in the object glass of the microscope, there is no absolute\ncertainty that their quick, darting or jerking movements are due to any\nlife-manifestation, as heretofore assumed. Some quite as well defined\nforms are entirely motionless, and if all were so, it would be idle to\npredicate vitality of them.[32] These infinitessimal and constantly\nvarying forms, many of them not the one hundred-thousandth part of an inch\nin length, to say nothing of their other dimensions, may owe their\noscillations, wave movements, darting and other manifestations, and even\ntheir molecular arrangements and rearrangements, to other causes than\nthose strictly \"vital.\" And it should be borne in mind that their actual\nmovements are just as much exaggerated under the microscope as their real\ndimensions. But as they make their appearance in organic infusions only,\nthey are presumably vital organisms rather than fomentative or mere\nfilamentous yeast-manifestations.\n\nProfessor Huxley, while conceding that molecular changes may take place\nunder environing life-conditions, or in protoplasmic matter, denies that\nthe \"primordial cells\" possesses in any degree the characteristics of a\n\"machine,\" nor can they undergo any differentiating process by which the\ncharacter of their manifestations can be changed. And he even denies to\nthem the poor right to originate or in any way modify their own plasma. He\nsays: \"They are no more the producers of vital phenomena, than the shells\nscattered in orderly line along the sea-beach are the instruments by which\nthe gravitative force of the moon acts upon the ocean. Like these, the\ncells mark only where the vital tides have been, and how they have acted.\"\nThis is undoubtedly true of all cells in which the vital or functional\noffice has ceased, as in the case of Professor Beale's \"formed matter.\"\nThe cells are the result of the vital principle that lies behind them, and\nsimply indicate where life exists, or has manifestly ceased to exist.\nWhere the vital currents have ceased to flow, the wreck of primordial\ncells is quite as wide and disastrous as where millions of sea-shells have\nbeen strewn along a desolated and storm-swept sea-beach. They all come,\nboth the cells and shells, from the pre\u00ebxisting vital units, or\ndeterminate germs, that fall into their own incidences of movement,\nwithout any concurrence of physical conditions beyond their own inherent\ntendency to development. For \"conditions\" do not determine life; they only\nfavor its manifestation.\n\nBut some of the materialists claim that what we call \"vital units,\" or\ninvisible, indestructible germs,[33] are at best only \"physical\nrelations;\" that they have nothing more than a hypothetical existence,\nwithout any independent recognizable quality justifying our conclusions\nrespecting them. But may not this identical language be retortively\nsuggested in the case of their \"correlates of force?\" What more than a\nhypothetical existence have they? Certainly their enthusiasm to get rid of\nall vital conditions or manifestations, is quite as marked a feature in\ntheir speculations respecting life as any enthusiasm we have shown in the\nverification of vital phenomena, on the established law of cause and\neffect. They insist upon this law in the case of statical aggregates, and\neven assign absolute identity of attributes; but when it comes to\ndynamical aggregates, they fall back on partial identity only, and deny\nthe presence of the law altogether.\n\nNor are they any more felicitous in their treatment of other points in\ncontroversy. In speaking of his \"plastide particles,\" Professor Bastian,\nthe most defiant challenger of vitalistic propositions now living, says:\n\"Certain of these particles, through default of _necessary conditions,_\nnever actually develop into higher modes of being.\" Here he makes the\nabsence of \"necessary conditions\" the cause of non-development, while he\nstoutly denies that the presence of such \"conditions\" give rise to the\ndevelopment of a pre-existing vital unit. And yet, strange to say, he\nspeaks of the elemental origin of \"living matter\" as \"having probably\ntaken place on the surface of our globe since the far-remote period when\nsuch matter was first engendered.\" But how his \"sum-total of external\nconditions,\" acting upon _dead_ matter, can \"engender\" _living_ matter, is\none of those \"related heterogenetic phenomena\" which he does not\ncondescend to explain. It is by this sort of scientific verbiage that he\ngets rid of the pre-existing vital principle, or germinal principle of\nlife, which the biblical genesis declares to be in the earth itself.\n\nTo be entirely consistent with himself, he should deny the existence of\nthis germinal principle in the seeds of plants themselves, and insist upon\nthe sum-total of external conditions as the cause of all\nlife-manifestations, in the vegetal as in the animal world. There can be\nno inherent tendency, he should insist, in the seed itself towards\nstructural development, but only external conditions acting upon \"dead\nmatter,\" in heterogentic directions. The shooting down of the radicle or\nundeveloped root, and the springing up of the plumule or undeveloped\nstalk, is accordingly due to no vital principle in the seed, but to the\ncomplexity or entanglement of the molecules wrapped up in their\nintegumentary environment. And this, or some similar fortuitous\nentanglement of molecules, should account for all life-manifestations, as\nwell as all life-tendencies, in nature. These molecular entanglements\nshould, therefore, be infinite in number, as well as in fortuitous\ncomplexity, to account for all the myriad forms of life \"engendered from\ndead matter\" in the material universe.\n\nFor if there is any one thing that the materialists insist upon more\nresolutely than another, it is the fortuitousness of nature--the\nhappening by chance of whatever she does. Formerly it used to be the\n\"fortuitous concourse of atoms;\" now it is the \"fortuitous aggregate of\nmolecules.\" By what accidental or fortuitous happening the atoms have\ndropped out of their scientific categories, and the molecules have been\nadvanced to their commanding place in _absolute accidentalness_, is one\nof those unassignable causes in which they apparently so much delight. We\ncan only account for it on the supposition that they have all become\nworshippers of that blind and accidental Greek goddess, who bore the horn\nof Amalthea and plentifully endowed her followers with a wealth of\nlanguage and other much-coveted gifts, but not with the most desirable\nknack at disposing of them.\n\nThe true cause of vital phenomena manifestly depends on these two\nconditions--the presence of the specific vital unit, and the necessary\nenvironing plasma, or nutrient matter, for its primary development.\nWithout the presence of both of these conditions, or conditioning\nincidences, there can be no life-manifestation anywhere. And we do not see\nthat anything is gained, even in the matter of scientific nomenclature, by\nmerely substituting \"molecular force\" for \"vital force,\" in the\nexplication of vital phenomena. Even granting that molecular changes do\ntake place during the development of the vital units in their necessary\nplasmic environment; it by no means follows that these changes are not\ndependent on the vital principle _as it acts_, rather than on the\nmolecules _as they act_,[34] The higher force should always subordinate\nthe lower in all metamorphic, as well as other processes, of nature. It is\nthe vital principle that differentiates matter--the aggregate of\nmolecules--not matter differentiating the vital principle. No \"mol\u00e9cules\norganiques\" can ever differentiate an ape-unit into a man-unit, any more\nthan Professor Tyndall can fetch a Plato out of mere sky-mist. Once an\nape-unit, always an ape-unit; once a man-unit, eternally a man-unit.\n\nLet the vitalists stick to this proposition--this eternally fixed _unit_\nas \"_une id\u00e9e dans l'entendement de Dieu,\" _ (to use a better French\nexpression than English)--and they can fight the materialists off their\nown ground anywhere. The one sublime verity of the universe is that\n\"life exists,\" and that it has existed from all eternity _as possible_\nin the Divine mind, and in the Divine mind alone. If materialistic\nscience is disposed to butt its head against this impregnable\nproposition, it can do so. The proposition will stand, whatever may\nhappen to the inconsiderate head.\n\nFor science may press her devotees into as many different pursuits as\nthere are starting-points to an azimuth circle, and command them to search\nand find out the ultimate causes of things in the universe, but the\nforever narrowing circle in one direction, and the forever widening one in\nthe other, would utterly baffle all their attempted research. Whether they\ndescended into the microscopic world, with its myriad-thronged conditions\nof life, or passed upward and outward, in _Sirius-_distances, to the\nirresolvable nebul\u00e6, where other and perhaps brighter stars might burst\nupon their view--gleaming coldly and silently down the still enormous\nfissures and chasms in the heavens--the result would be the same. Wider\nand wider fields of observation might open upon their view, as the stellar\nswarms thickened and the power of human vision failed, but the\nuranological expedition would return no wiser than when it started, and\nScience would still be confronted with the same illimitability of space,\nthe same infinitude of matter, and the same incomprehensibility of the\nworld-arranging intelligence that lies beyond. For He who hath garnished\nthe heavens by his spirit--who divideth the sea with his power, and\nhangeth the earth upon nothing--\"_holdeth back the face of his throne and\nspreadeth his cloud upon it_.\"\n\nWhat if, in one direction, we should find those inconceivably small\nspecks, or mere bioplastic points, which we call \"living matter,\" or, in\nthe other direction, those inconceivably vast world-forming masses which\nwe call \"dead matter,\" who shall say that \"the secret places of the Most\nHigh\" are not hidden from us, or that when the spirit of God first moved\nthrough these vast fissures and chasms in the heavens upon the face of all\nmatter, there was not imparted to it that \"animating principle of life\" of\nwhich the biblical genesis speaks, and which we everywhere see manifesting\nitself in nature? Surely this inquiry is not one to be superciliously set\naside by the materialists, after the failure of their uranological\nexpedition, on the ground that it does not furnish food enough for\nscientific contemplation, without such physiological fancies as their\nspecialists have been giving us in the shape of force-correlations and\nmolecular theories of life.\n\nBut speaking of the higher forces as subordinating the lower, suggests\nthat there should be something more definitely explained regarding the\nhypothesis of \"differentiation,\" on which Mr. Herbert Spencer hangs so\nmuch of his mathematical faith in the true explication of vital\nphenomena. The term \"differentiation\" is not so formidable as it might\nseem to the general reader at first sight. As applied to physiological\nproblems it should have the same determinate value, in expressing\nfunctional differences, as in the higher operations of mathematics.\nNothing can, of course, differentiate itself, nor can any two things\ndifferentiate each other, even when functionally allied. The actual\nco\u00ebfficient sought is the difference effected, in functional value, in\none of two independent variables. For all formul\u00e6 in differentiation are\nconstructed on the hypothesis that only one of two variables suffers\nchange. The differential co\u00ebfficient has yet to be determined which shall\nexpress the developmental changes in two variables at once. When,\ntherefore, we attempt to extend the formul\u00e6 of differentiation to plant\nand animal life, we are confronted by a very formidable difficulty at the\noutset--the impossibility of determining an invariable co\u00ebfficient for\nany two variables. Besides, all attempts at differentiating an ape-unit\ninto anything else than an ape-unit would be as impossible as to multiply\nor divide cabbages by turnips, or sparrows by sparrowhawks. Such\ndivisions would give us no quotients, any more than their\ndifferentiations would give us a co\u00ebfficient. Physiological\ndifferentiation will, therefore, never help us out of fixed species or\nnearly allied types. We can bridge no specific differences by it. In the\ndifferentiation of the horse and the ass for instance, the superior blood\nwill predominate in the preservation of types, and even the mule will\nkick against further differentiation. Nature would so utterly abhor the\npractice as resolutely to slam the door in Mr. Spencer's face, if the\nobstinacy of the mule did not kick it off its hinges.\n\nAnd nature would be quite as intractable in the case of\n\"force-correlation,\" another of Mr. Spencer's redoubtable phrases. This\nterm is quite recent in its application to animate objects, nor has it\nbeen long applied to inanimate. It is claimed to be a recently discovered\nforce, and is one that the materialists have seized upon as the Herculean\nclub with which to smite all vital theories to the earth. Its meaning, so\nfar as it has any, is not difficult to get at. The simplest way to explain\nit, however, is the best. The reader is to understand that when he rubs\ntwo flat sticks together, the heat thereby engendered is not the result of\nfriction, as all the world has heretofore supposed, but that the amount of\nforce expended in rubbing the right-hand stick against the left-hand\nstick, is, by some law of versability, not over-well defined, transferred\nto the two sticks, and gets so entangled between their surfaces that it\ncan only reappear in another and altogether different kind of force. When\nit leaves the hands and passes into the two sticks, it is, as the\nmaterialists assert, vital force. But as no force can be annihilated, the\nconclusive assumption is that it still exists somewhere. All of it, in the\nfirst place, went into the two flat sticks, and, when there, _ceased to be\nvital force._ Some of it disappeared, of course, in overcoming the inertia\nof the sticks, but the bulk of it became entangled with the superficial\nmolecules of the two sticks, and reappeared as _heat_--another name for\nmolecular force.\n\nThis is what is meant by the \"differentiation\" of vital force into\nmolecular force, and _vice versa_. But by what process of rubbing, under\nthis law of versability, molecular force can be reversed, or\ndifferentiated back into vital force, Mr. Spencer has not condescended to\ninform us. The simple truth is, and the materialists will be forced to\nadmit it in the end, that there is no verification of this theory beyond\nthat of mere force-equivalence. For instance, it has been experimentally\ndetermined that a certain amount of fuel expended in heat is equivalent to\na certain amount of mechanical force, not mechanical _work_, as M. Carnot\nputs it. For force is not expended in work until it is actually generated,\nand the amount generated, not that expended in work, is the real\nequivalence of the heat produced from fuel.\n\nAnother problem is presented when it comes to determining the amount of\ngenerated force necessary to run a piece of machinery which shall\naccomplish a given amount of mechanical work.\n\nA far better phrase to express this equivalence of force has been\nsuggested and used by several writers in what is called the \"Transmutation\nof Force.\" For there is no correlation, or reciprocal relation, between\nheat as originally produced by the consumption of fuel and the force as\nengendered in steam before it is transmuted into work. Nor is there any\nreal equivalence as between the two forces after its transmutation. A very\nlarge per centage of heat is lost in its transmutation from a latent form\nin fuel to an active or available form in steam, and a still greater loss\nin its transmission into work by machinery. Theoretically, there may be\nsuch an equivalence as that named, but practically it is impossible to\nrealize it. And a theory that is impossible of realization is of no\npractical utility in itself, and of little value as the basis of further\ntheory. If, then, the theory of force equivalence is a failure in\npractical application, it furnishes a very poor basis on which to\npredicate force-correlation, or the doctrine of reciprocal forces. It is\nestimated, for instance, that a pound weight falling seven hundred and\nseventy-two feet, will, in striking the earth, impart to it a degree of\nheat equivalent to raising one pound of water 1\u00b0 F. But the heat thus\nimparted can never be so utilized as to raise a pound weight seven hundred\nand seventy-two feet into the air.\n\nThis shows that there is no actual reciprocity of relationship between the\nforce as originally engendered and finally expended in work. Nor can it be\nshown that the original force is transmuted or changed into another and\ndifferent kind of force by the operation. The force generated and the\nforce expended are essentially one and the same, as much so as that\ntransmitted from the power to the weight by means of a rope and pulley.\nAnd the quality of the force is not changed, whether the weight be lifted\nby machinery or the human hand. Force, in its mechanical sense, is that\npower which produces motion, or an alteration in the direction of motion,\nand is incapable of being specialized, except in a highly figurative\nsense, into a thousand and one correlates of motion. But these\nmiscellaneous and figurative forces are not what we are considering. The\ndoctrine of force-correlation takes no such wide and comprehensive sweep.\nIt embraces neither the force of wit, nor the force of folly; but\nmechanical force and its equivalents. The force exercised by the human\nhand in lifting a weight either with or without rope and pulley is, in\nevery definitional sense of the word, mechanical force. For the arm and\nhand are only the implements, or mechanical contrivances of nature, by\nwhich the will-power transmutes itself into work, or, more properly\nspeaking, transmits itself from the point of force-generation to that of\nforce-expenditure. And this is precisely the office performed by all\nmechanical contrivances for the transmission--not transmutation--of force.\nAnd the most perfect machine is that which transmits the engendered force,\nwith the least possible waste or abandonment, to its point of ultimate\nexpenditure in work.\n\nAll these hypothetical correlates of force, therefore, predicated upon the\ndoctrine of force-transmutation, have no foundation in fact, since the\nforce transmitted from the point of generation to the point of expenditure\nundergoes no change but that of direction, in its passage along rope,\nwire, belt, pulley, shafting, etc. A man whose limbs have been paralyzed,\nmay still will to remove mountains. The will-power is the same, but the\nmechanical contrivances for its transmission are wanting. Of the actual\npoint or centre of this force-generation, in the case of the will-power,\nwe know nothing; but the moment the power is started on its way towards\nthe point of force-expenditure, whether it traverses the nerves and\ntissues of the brain, or the right arm or the left, or a crowbar or\npickaxe, it is in no sense distinguishable from the force that traverses a\nrope and pulley. Nor is there any evidence that it undergoes molecular\nchanges, or becomes modified or conditioned by any nearly or remotely\nrelated force, as it darts along the nerves, runs through the contracted\ntissues, electrifies the crowbar, or flashes into work from the point of a\npickaxe. Whatever produces, or tends to produce, motion, or an alteration\nin its direction, is mechanical force, no matter from what force-centre it\nmay start. When we can definitely determine the centre of vital force, as\nexercised in building up vital structure, _not in wielding pickaxes_, it\nis to be hoped we shall be able to distinguish, by the proper correlates,\nvital force from that which is mechanical. But the task is manifestly a\nhopeless one with the materialists.\n\nProfessor Beale positively denies that there are any such physical\nforce-relations as those claimed by the materialists, and asserts that\nvital force bears no relation, or correlation, to either chemical or\nphysical force; that the one is a distinct and separate factor from the\nother, and cannot be interpreted in the same force-formul\u00e6. He says: \"The\nidea of motion, or heat, or light, or electricity _forming_ or _building_\nup, or _constructing_ any texture capable of fulfilling a definite\npurpose, seems absurd, and opposed to all that is known, and yet is the\nnotion continually forced upon us, that vitality, which does construct, is\nbut a correlate of ordinary energy or motion.\"\n\nBut after devoting so much time to \"force-correlation,\" and\n\"force-differentiation,\" the advocates of \"molecular-machinery\" may feel\nthemselves neglected if we dismiss their favorite hobby without further\nnotice. The precise parentage of this term is disputed, but it has any\nnumber of _putative_ fathers. We have spoken of the size of the molecules\nthemselves, and the numbers of them that might be huddled together on the\npoint of a cambric needle without jostling. Let us now consider the size\nof a molecular machine. For each molecule runs its own machine, and is\nprovident enough to see that they do not jostle. In fact, it is a very\nnice question in physics, whether the machines do not run the molecules,\ninstead of the prevailing opposite opinion that the molecules run the\nmachines. Unfortunately, the question is one that can never be determined.\nThe requisite scientific data will forever be wanting.\n\nBut Professor James C. Maxwell, now, or quite recently, filling the chair\nof experimental physics in the University of Cambridge, England, has\nfurnished us with _approximate_ calculations. On the strength of his\napproximations we will proceed to consider the dimensions of these\nwonderful little machines. And first, it may be axiomatically laid down\nthat these molecular machines, which either run the molecules or are run\nby them, can never exceed the size of their respective molecules.\nConceding, then, that each one of these machines exactly fits into its own\nmolecule, so as to present identically the same dimensions--as well as\ntheir largest possible dimensions--it would require two millions of them,\nplaced in a row, to make one millimetre, or the one three hundred and\nninety-four thousandths of an inch in length, or seven hundred and\neighty-eight billions of them to make one inch! Who will ever be staggered\nat _Sirius_-distances, after this? And who will deny that an infinite\nworld lies below the point of our microscopic vision, if not an Infinite\nkingdom and throne beyond our telescopic glance?\n\nBut, following the same high authority in experimental physics, let us\nconsider the aggregate weight of these molecular machines. We will not\nmarshal their aggregate numbers in a row, for an array of forty billions\nof them would make too insignificant a figure for inspection; but simply\ngive their actual weight as computed under the French or metric system.\nTake, then, a million million million million of these machines, throwing\nin molecules and all, and they will weigh, if there is no indiscreet\nkicking of the beam, just a fraction between four and five grammes, or--to\ndifferentiate the weights--a small fraction over one-tenth of an ounce!\n\nBut why not get down to the atoms, of which the molecules are only the\ntheoretical congeries, and marshal the \"atomic forces\" into line? These\nembryonic atoms are much the braver warriors, and, when summoned to do\nbattle, spring, lithe and light-armed, against the elemental foe. They are\nno cowardly molecules, these atoms, but make war against Titans, as well\nas Titanic thrones and powers. The elements recognize them as their body\nguardsmen, their corps of invincible lancers, their bravest and best\nsoldiers in fight. And they are wholly indifferent as to the legions of\nmolecules arrayed against them, and would as soon hurl a mountain of them\ninto the sea as to sport with a zephyr or caper with the east wind. Why\nnot summon these countless myriads of bright and invincible spearmen, to\nbatter down the walls of this Cretan labyrinth of Life? An army of these\nwould be worth all the molecules that Professor Maxwell could array in\nline, in a thousand years. No life-problem need remain unsolved with their\nbright spears to drive the tenebrious mists before them. Even Professor\nTyndall's \"fog-banks of primordial haze\" would be ignominiously scattered\nin flight before these atomic legions. Let our materialistic friends\nsummon them, then, to their aid. The field of controversy will never be\nwon by their molecular \"Hessians.\" The ineffably bright lancers that stand\nguard over the elemental hosts are the light brigade with which to rout\nthe vitalistic enemy. Advance them then to the front, and, beneath the\nshadowy wing of pestilence or some other appalling ensign of destruction,\nthe abashed vital squadrons will flee in dismay.\n\nBut let us pass from scientific speculations to alleged scientific facts.\nIn a paper read by Dr. Hughes Bennett before the Royal Society of\nEdinburgh, in 1861, its author says: \"The first step, in the process of\norganic formation, is the production of an organic fluid; the second, the\nprecipitation of organic molecules, from which, according to the molecular\nlaw of growth, all other textures are derived either directly or\nindirectly.\" Here again the molecules, and not the elementary atoms, are\nadvanced to the front, and not a little anxiety is shown, in a\ndefinitional way, to identify vital processes of growth with crystalline\nprocesses of formation. But Dr. Bennett entirely mistakes, as well as\nmisstates, the process of vital development, if he does not overlook the\nlaw governing the formation of crystals. There can be no symmetrically\narranged solids in an inorganic fluid without the presence of some law, or\nprinciple, definitely determining, not the \"precipitation,\" but the\n\"formation,\" of crystals. The inorganic particles are not precipitated or\nthrown downward, any more than they are sublevated or thrown upward. The\nprocess is one of formation, not precipitation. Every crystallographer,\nnot hampered by materialistic views and anti-vital theories, admits the\npresence of a fixed and determinate law governing each crystalline system,\nwhatever may be the homologous parts or the unequal axes it represents.\n\nAnd so of the equally undeviating law of vital growth. Life comes from no\nmere \"precipitation of organic molecules,\" as Dr. Bennett would have us\nbelieve. If so, what is it that precipitates the molecules? They can\nhardly be said to precipitate themselves. To precipitate, in a chemical\nsense, is to be thrown down, or caused to be thrown down, as a substance\nfrom its solution. What, then, causes the molecules to be thus\nprecipitously thrown down from a fluid to a solid, or a semi-solid, state?\nIt cannot be from any blind or inconsiderate haste on the part of the\nmolecules themselves. There must be some independent principle, or law of\nnature--one presupposing an intelligent law-giver--to effect the\n\"precipitating process,\" if any such really exists.\n\nBut it does not exist. The first step is one of development and\ngrowth--the manifestation of functional activity--the building up of\norganic or cellular tissue. The exact process, in the case of seed-bearing\nplants and trees, is well known. All those familiar with the\ncharacteristic differences of seeds, their chemical constituents, their\ntegumentary coverings, rudimentary parts, etc., thoroughly understand the\nprocess in its outward manifestation. There is no precipitation of\nmolecules as in an organic fluid, unless the albumen lying between the\nembryo and testa of the seeds, and constituting the nutriment on which the\nplant feeds during its primary stages of growth, can be called a fluid. It\nthrows none of its characteristic ingredients downward any more than\nupward. Indeed the greater tendency of its molecules is upward rather than\ndownward, in the \"molecular processes\" (vital ones) by which the embryonic\ncell is started upon its career of plant-life. The celebrated Dr. Liebig\nsays of this albuminous environment: \"It is the foundation, the\nstarting-point, of the whole series of peculiar tissues which constitute\nthose organs which are the seat of all vital actions.\" In the case of\nanimal life, this albumen abounds in the serum of the blood, enters\nlargely into the chyle and lymph, goes to build up the tissues and\nmuscles, and is the chief ingredient of the nerves, glands, and even the\nbrain itself. And in all these developmental stages, its tendency is to\ncoagulate rather than precipitate. In its coagulated condition, it dries\nto a hard, partially translucent and friable state, and is more or less\ninsoluble in water, and entirely so at a temperature from 140\u00b0 to 160\u00b0 F.\n\nWhen the seed is planted or placed in water, it first commences to swell\nfrom the absorption of the water or moisture of the ground by the pores of\nits external covering, the favorable temperature being from 60\u00b0 to 80\u00b0 F.\nIt gradually expands until its outer membranes burst, and its initial\nrootlets clasp their hold upon the earth. From this point its several\nstages of development are well known to the ordinary observer. Here the\nfirst step is absorption and expansion, not precipitation. There is also a\nchange in chemical conditions, the water at least being decomposed. For it\nwould seem to be a law of vegetal growth that reproduction should begin in\ndecomposition and decay. The Apostle's description of the \"death of the\ngrain,\" as symbolizing the death of man, in his first Epistle to the\nCorinthians, points conclusively in this direction. It is in the\ndecomposition and decay of the grain that the implanted germ is quickened\ninto life--ascends into the bright light, the warm sunshine, the\nrefreshing presence of showers and dews. In this way it fulfils its\nprovidential purpose of yielding to the sower the more munificent life\nwhich he is forever seeking to attain.\n\nIts germination is the springing up of the inner living principle of the\ngrain, not its outer envelope or dead husk. This disappears in decay,\nexcept the small nutrient portion within which the germinal principle of\nlife would seem to reside, and which undergoes a thorough chemical change\nin the process of passing from death unto life, or being assimilated and\ntaken up into the new living structure. The Apostle's comparison\ndistinctly marks these several changes as the one process of passing from\ndeath unto life. He saw in this wonderful provision of nature, the still\nmore wonderful prevision of God. To his mind it was over the debris of the\ndead past that the living present is constantly marching towards a higher\nand more perfect life--the ultimate fruition and joy of an eternal home in\nthe skies! And he saw that the two grand instrumentalities and\nco-accessory agencies to this end, were Life and Death, both equally\nconstant and active, like all the other instrumentalities and governing\nagencies of the universe. Life is forever unlocking the portals of the\npresent to youth and vigor; Death is forever closing them to age and\ndecrepitude. This divine prevision thus becomes the wisest and most\nbeneficent provision. Without life there would be no such thing as death,\nand without death no such thing as this grand succession and march of\nlife--this passing from out the Shadow into the Day.\n\n\n\n\nChapter X.\n\nDarwinism Considered from a Vitalistic Stand-Point.\n\n\n\nGranting that the assumption of Darwinism rests, as claimed, on the fixed\nand inflexible adaptation of means to ends, in the diversified yet\nmeasurably specialized processes of nature, there is no logical deduction\nto be drawn therefrom but that which traces the representatives of all the\ngreat types of the animal kingdom to one single source, and that not the\nSovereign Intelligence of the Universe, but a mere \"ovule in protoplasm,\"\nor what may be defined, in its unaggregated form, as an inconceivably\nsmall whirligig, having motion on a central axis, but whether an\nindependent motion of its own, or one derived from an Infinite\nIntelligence, the Darwinian systematizers are not bold enough to aver.\nThey have too many _a priori_ scruples either to assert the one\nproposition or to deny the other. What set this little whirligig in motion\nis a mystery that lies beyond the purview of science, so called, and into\nthe depths of this infinitessimal and most mysterious little chamber they\nrefuse to go.\n\nThey search not for the evidence of an Infinite Intelligence in the\noutermost circle of the heavens where the highest is to be found, and\nwhere a bound is set that we may not pass, but shutting their eyes to all\nthe grander evidences of such an Intelligence, they dive down into the\ninfinitessimal realm of nature and assume to dig out the sublimer secrets\nof the universe there. And this is their grand discovery: That this\ninfinitessimal whirligig of theirs has not only whirled man into\nexistence, but the entire circle of the heavens, with the innumerable host\nof stars that march therein, and all the boundless systems of worlds that\nroll in space. With this subordination of the Infinite to the\ninfinitessimal, of intelligence to insensate matter, of divine energy, so\nto speak, to blind molecular force, they are satisfied; and, like the mole\nin the fable, conceive their little molecule to be the only possible\ncreator of a stupendous universe.\n\nScrutinize my propositions closely, and see if I am guilty of misstating\ntheirs. Their new theory is only a slight modification of an old one, or\nthe old adage, _omne vivum ex ovo_--all life is from an egg. For they\nassert that every living thing primordially proceeds from an ovule in\nprotoplasm, the essential part of the protoplasmic egg, so to speak, being\nthis little _ovum_ or cellule, from which have issued all possible\norganisms in both the vegetable and animal kingdoms. Nor is this theory\nessentially confined to organic matter. A scientific co\u00f6rdination of its\nseveral known parts, or alleged functions, extends the operations of this\ninfinitessimal whirligig to the plastic or uniformly diffused state of all\nmatter, from which has been evolved, in an infinite duration of past time,\nnot only life in its highest manifestations, but a universe so\nstupendously grand that no amount of human intelligence can grasp the\nfirst conception of it.\n\nMr. Emerson--our Ralph Waldo--virtually accepts this theory of\ndevelopment, substituting, however, a stomach for an ovule, and the\nreverse of the Darwinian proposition, in what he is pleased to call \"the\nincessant opposition of nature to everything hurtful.\" It is not the\n\"selection of the fittest\" but the \"rejection of the unfit,\" by which \"a\nbeneficent necessity (I use his language) is always bringing things\nright.\" \"It is in the stomach of plants,\" he says, \"that development\nbegins, and ends in the circles of the universe.\" \"'Tis a long way,\" he\nadmits, \"from the gorilla to the gentleman--from the gorilla to Plato,\nNewton, Shakespeare--to the sanctities of religion, the refinements of\nlegislation, the summits of science, art, poetry.\"\n\nFew persons, I take it, will dispute this proposition. The road is a long\none and beset with all sorts of thorns and briars, such as Mr. Emerson's\nphilosophy will hardly eradicate from the wayside. Even the most refined\nempiricism will find it difficult to stomach his stomachic theory of the\nuniverse, which lands all atomic or corpuscular philosophy in a digestive\nsac, such as Jack Falstaff bore about him with its measureless capacity\nfor potations and Eastcheap fare. It is a road too in which Mr. Emerson's\nphilosophy will get many sharp raps from an external world of phenomena,\nin the futility of both his and the Darwinian hypothesis to explain away\nthe independent origination of certain species of plants and animals--new\nvarieties still springing into existence, under favorable conditions, in\nobedience to the divine fiat, \"Let the earth bring forth.\"\n\nIn laying the foundations of this new science, if science it shall be\ncalled, we must insist that the course of nature is uniform, and that,\nhowever extended our generalizations in any one of her lines of\nuniformity, all intermediate, as well as ultimate propositions, must not\nonly be stated with the utmost scientific accuracy, but the logical\ndeductions therefrom must also be uniform, or lie in the path of\nuniformity. The earliest and latest inductions must either coincide or\napproximate the same end. No links must be broken, no chasms bridged, in\nthe scientific series. There must be a distinct and separate link\nconnecting each preceding and each succeeding one in the chain. The lowest\nknown mammal must be found in immediate relationship with his higher\ncongener or brother, not in any remote cousinship. There must be no\nsaltatory progress--no leaping over intermediate steps or degrees. The\nheights of science are not to be scaled _per saltum_, except as degrees\nmay sometimes be conferred by our universities.[35]\n\nThere are some fish-like animals, say our Darwinian systematizers, like\nthe Lepidosirens and their congeners, with the characteristics of\namphibians; and hence they infer that by successive deviations and\nimprovements the lower order has risen into the higher. But out of what\npage in the volume of nature, in the countless leaves we have turned back,\nhas the immediate congener dropped, that we are obliged to look for the\nrelationship in thirty-fourth cousins? We might as well say that some of\nthe _Infusoria_ possess the same or similar characteristics, and predicate\nrelationship between them and the amphibians; for giants sometimes spring\nfrom dwarfs and dwarfs from giants. At all events, our diagnoses must be\nfreed from these intermediate breaks or failures in the chain of\ncontinuity, or the doctrine of descent must tumble with the imaginary\nfoundations on which it is built. And bear in mind that the most\nenthusiastic Darwinist is forced to admit that there are still rigid\npartitions between the lower and higher organisms that have not been\npierced by the light of scientific truth, but they assume that future\ndiscoveries and investigations will solve the difficulty. But science,\ninflexible as she is, or ought to be, in her demands, admits of no\nassumptions, much less sanctions such exceptions and deviations as we\nconstantly find in the Darwinian path of continuity. The eye of\nimagination can supply nothing to her vision. She is eagle-eyed, and soars\ninto the bright empyrean--does not dive into quagmires and the slime of\ncreation after truth.\n\nBut let us see how Mr. Darwin bridges one of the very first chasms he\nmeets with in constructing his chain of generation. He goes back to the\nfirst link, or to what he calls primordial generation. Here the leap is\nfrom inorganic matter to the lowest form of organic life--from inanimate\nto animate dust. The chasm is immense, as all will agree. But he bridges\nit by falling back on his infinitessimal whirligig--his _primum\nmobile_--or on the motions of elements as yet inaccessible, except to the\neye of imagination. For even Plato's monad, or ultimate atom, was not\nmatter itself, being indivisible, but rather a formal unit or primary\nconstituent of matter, which, like Mr. Darwin's whirligig in its\nunaggregated form, admits of neither a maximum nor a minimum of\ncomprehension; but rests entirely on imaginary hypothesis. And we may here\nadd that a system which begins in imaginary hypotheses and ends in\nthem--as that of bridging the chasmal difference between a gorilla and a\nPlato--can be dignified into a science only by a still greater stretch of\nthe imagination--that of bridging the difference between the Darwinian\nzero and his ninety degrees of development in a Darwin himself!\n\nBear in mind, as we proceed, that the function of an argument in\nphilosophy, as in logic, is to prove that a certain relation exists\nbetween two concepts or objects of thought, when that relation is not\nself-evident. In the Darwinian chain we have, as the first link, organic\nlife springing from inorganic matter, without the slightest relation\nexisting between the two, except what may be universally predicated of\nmatter itself, whether animate or inanimate, organic or inorganic; and\nthere is no other affirmative premise, expressing their agreement as\nextremes, that can possibly admit of an affirmative conclusion. The parts\nare so separated in thought that no metaphysical or ideal distinction\nexists to coordinate them in classification. We are simply forced back, in\nour attempt at classification, upon the intuitions of consciousness, where\nreason manifestly ceases to enforce its inductions.\n\nAnd here the human mind intuitively springs an objection which is at once\naimed at the very citadel of Darwinism. On what rests the validity of\nthese intuitions except it be that \"breath of life,\" which, as we have\nbefore said, was breathed into man when he became a living soul? If we\nfollow the divine record, instead of these blind systematizers leading the\nblind, we shall have no difficulty in establishing the validity of these\nintuitions--the highest potential factors this side of Deity to be found\nanywhere in the universe. For if our intuitions are not to be relied\nupon--if their objects and perceptions are to be discarded as\nunreliable--then there can be no agreement or disagreement between any two\nideas presented, objectively or subjectively, to the human mind. No\nprocesses of mental analysis or ratiocination, like those pursued in the\nelementary methods of Euclid, can present the basis of an intellectual\njudgment, or lay the foundation of the slightest faith or belief in the\nworld. To deny the primary perception of truth by intuition is as fatal to\n\"Evolution\" as to the sublimer teachings of the Bible Genesis.\n\nBut from the very nature of our being, as well as the primary _datum_ of\nconsciousness itself, we must rest the validity of these intuitions on\nsomething, and that, something more than a finite intelligence; and since\nscience, with all her knowledge methodically digested and arranged,\nfurnishes no clue to the mystery, we are left to the higher sources of\ninspiration to reach it. And this inspiration, however it may be derived,\nnecessarily becomes a part of our intuitions, since it addresses itself to\nthe strongest possible cravings of the human soul, and is accepted as its\ninseparable companion and guest.\n\nShall we build our faith then on the Divine Word,--on the Word that was in\nthe beginning with God, and, when incarnate, _was_ God,--or on Mr.\nDarwin's little whirligig that originally set everything in motion, and\nhas only to go on _ad infinitum_ to whirl us out a God, as it has already\nwhirled us out a Darwinian universe without one. For if this ovulistic\nwhirligig has bridged the chasmal difference between protoplasm and man,\nsince the transition from inorganic matter to organic life, the process\nhas only to be indefinitely extended to bridge the chasm between man and\nDeity, or between finite and infinite intelligence. This gives us nature\nevolving a God, instead of the doctrine of the old Theogonies, of a God\npresiding from all eternity over nature; one \"who laid the foundations of\nthe earth that it should not be removed forever; who stretchest out the\nheavens like a curtain; who layeth the beams of his chambers in the\nwaters; who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire.\"\n\nThese evolutionists manifestly get the cart before the horse in their\ncategory of cosmological events. It is not inert matter organizing itself\ninto life, nor any mode of physical or chemical action, nor any mere\nmanifestation of motion or of heat, nor any other conceivable correlation\nof natural forces. None of these has enabled us to penetrate the\nmysterious _inner-chamber_ of life itself. For reasons obviously connected\nwith our own welfare, He, from whom alone are \"the issues of life,\" seems\nto have ordained that we should fathom the depths of both physical and\nchemical force, and beneficently wield and direct them to our own uses.\nBut this vital force; this something that stands apart from and is\nessentially different from all other kinds of force, is of a nature that\nbaffles all our efforts to approach. The power to grasp it, or even to\npenetrate in the slightest degree its mysteries, is delegated to none. All\nattempts to lay bare this principle of vitality, or level the barriers\nthat separate it from physical or chemical action, have utterly failed. We\nknow no more of its essence now than was known a thousand years ago, and\nknow no less than will be known a thousand years hence. To become masters\nof the mystery, we must enter the impenetrable veil within which the\nInfinite Intelligence of the universe presides,--who, we are told,\n\"sendeth forth his spirit, and we are created, who taketh away our breath,\nwe die and return to our dust.\" [36]\n\nWe are just as much bewildered in respect to this vital principle in our\nclassifications of the myriads of little creatures careering over the\nfield of the microscope, as when we turn to the most marked formations of\ngenera and species in geological distribution. The great trouble with Mr.\nDarwin's _vinculum_ is, that its weakest links are precisely where the\nstrongest should be found, and _vice versa_. With a candor rarely\ndisplayed by a writer who is spinning a theory, he admits this. The\ngeological record is not what he would have it to be. Whole chapters are\ngone where they are most needed, and nature's lithography seems constantly\nat fault. Independent species are now and then springing up where\nderivatives should be looked for, while derivatives are everywhere\ndisappearing in non-derivatives. Many of the middle Tertiary _molusca_,\nand a large proportion of the later Tertiary period, are specifically\nidentical with the living species, of to-day. What has \"natural selection\"\nbeen doing for this family in the last million years or more? Manifestly\nnothing, and less than nothing, for some of the species have dropped out\naltogether.\n\nThese facts, and hundreds of others like them, are constantly obtruding\nthemselves upon our attention to show, in harmony with the Bible Genesis,\nthe immutability of species--the absolute fixity of types--rather than\ntheir variability, as claimed. If nature abhors anything more than a\n_vacuum_, it is manifestly any marked transition from fixed types, and she\nthunders her edicts against it in the non-fertility of all hybrids. The\ndoctrine of variation lacks the all-essential element of continuity, and\nis oftener at war with the theory of the \"selection of the fittest,\" than\nit is with the selection of the \"unfit.\" The leap from Lepidosirens to\nAmphibians is no greater than the interval between any two species of\nanimals or plants yet discovered, either fossil or living. The intervals\nare as numerous as the species themselves, and everywhere constitute great\nand sudden leaps, or such transitional changes as \"natural selection\"\ncould not have effected independently of intervening forms--those that\nnowhere exist in nature, and never have existed, if we are to credit\ngeologic and paleontologic records. There is everywhere similarity of\nstructure, but not identity; and the nearer we approach to identity of\nstructure the wider the divergence in similarity of characteristics. A\nbird may be taught to talk and sing snatches of music. But no monkey has\never been able to articulate human sounds, much less give them rhythmical\nutterance.\n\nTake the case of the wild pigeon, a subject that especially delights Mr.\nDarwin. Most of the deviations are confined to the domesticated breeds,\nand none of these rank in strength, hardiness, capability of flight, or\nsymmetry of structure, with the wild or typical bird. There are\nwell-defined deviations, but no sensible improvements, except to the eye\nof the bird-fancier. The deviations are simply entailed weaknesses, or the\nvery reverse of what should appear from the \"selection of the fittest.\"\nThe fact undeniably is, that these variations are almost wholly\nabnormal--mere exaggerated characteristics, induced in the first instance,\nperhaps, by high cultivation and close in-and-in breeding.\n\nTurn these abnormal varieties loose, let them go back to the aboriginal\nstock, and these characteristics will rapidly disappear; that is, they\nwill ultimately lose themselves or melt away in the original type. Mr.\nDarwin admits that the tendency will be to reversion, but he insists,\nmanifestly without any positive proof therefor, that the greater tendency\nis to new centres of attraction, and not necessarily the primitive one.\nBut this is mere assumption--sheer begging the question on his\npart,--since all the oscillations are incontestibly about the original or\ntype centre.\n\nThe same may be said of the typical races of men, like the negro and wild\nIndian of our prairies. You may lift them out of their primitive\ncondition--temporarily suspend, if you please so to put it, their\nprimordial attraction,--but, left again to themselves, they will go back\nto the original type; that is, their offspring will again infest the\njungles and roam their native hunting-grounds. The process here is the\nvery reverse of the Darwinian theory. Reversion, as a rule, follows the\ndegeneracy of types, instead of there being any favorable homogeneous\nresult, springing from a new centre of attraction. The Indian makes a\nsplendid savage, but a very poor white man. Think of Red Jacket taking the\npart of Mercutio in the play or enacting the more valiant _role_ of\nFalstaff in King Henry the Fourth. An infusion of white blood does not\nhelp the matter, but rather makes it worse. Generally, the meanest Indian\non the continent is your half-breed, and among the negroes there is no\nterm so expressive of the contempt of that race, as that applied by them\nto a mulatto. The present condition of Mexico affords a striking\nexemplification of this law of reversion. The inheritable characteristics\nor variations, produced from an infusion of Spanish blood, are rapidly\ndisappearing--the native blood whipping out the European. The potency is\nin the inferior blood, simply because it is the predominating one. The\nresult has been no homogeneous new race, but a reversion, now manifestly\nin progress, to the type centre or aboriginal stock. And the curse\npronounced by Ezekiel upon mongrel tribes--\"woe unto the mingled peoples\"\nmay have a significance in this connection worth considering; but it\nmanifestly falls outside the scope of our present inquiry.\n\nIn considering the embryological structure of man, and the homologies he\ntherein presents to the lower animals, Mr. Darwin thus conclusively (in\nhis judgment) remarks: \"We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy\nquadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in\nhis habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World.\"\n\nBut Mr. Darwin's pronominal \"we,\" in this connection, admits of\nqualification. He can hardly speak for all the scientific world at once.\nThe philosophical maxim of Sir Isaac Newton--_hypotheses non fingo_--I\nbuild no hypotheses, make no suppositions, but adhere to facts--has a few\nfollowers still left. But what are Mr. Darwin's facts? Has he yet\ndiscovered the caudal man, except as the ever-fertile Mr. Stanley heard of\none in Africa? And where is his monkey that first lost the prehensile\npower to climb trees? For bear in mind that it was the loss of this\nprehensile power that resulted in the caudal atrophy of our monkey\nprogenitors, _who became men simply because they were tailless monkeys!_\nThey had lost their power to climb trees, and accordingly had no longer\nany use for tails to let themselves down from the limbs. A \"beneficent\nnecessity\" therefore, according to Mr. Emerson, dropped the tail as\nsomething decidedly \"unfit.\" For the simplest tyro in Darwinian philosophy\nwill see that the loss of the Catarrhine monkey's tail, if it ever\noccurred, could not have resulted from the \"selection of the fittest.\" The\ndeeper Emersonian philosophy of the \"rejection of the unfit,\" affords the\nonly solution of the difficulty, and then only on the assumption that the\ntail is an unfit appendage for the monkey.\n\nWith the loss of his tail, in the light of this new genesis, the monkey\nnecessarily ceased to be arboreal in his habits. He could no longer\nsubsist on the fruits and nuts of trees, or take refuge therein from his\nenemies. He had to go to work and make weapons to defend himself--to\nconstruct tools--make and set traps, live on his wits, and not on his\nprehensile power to climb trees. He soon discovered, of course, that the\nlongest pole knocked the persimmon. This was his first intellectual stride\ntowards the future Edison. From the simplest sort of Grahamitic\nphilosopher he passed into the robust, beef-eating Englishman. But this\nwas not all. As an arboreal gymnast, he was manifestly on his way to more\nmasterly feats of agility than ever,--those dependent, not on muscular\nfunction, but on the nervous action of the brain and spinal marrow.\nNecessity became with him the \"mother of invention,\" and how admirably he\nimproved under this maternal instructor we are left to infer from the\nparamount conclusion of Mr. Darwin, _that the demoralized monkey became\nthe incipient man_!\n\nBut this conclusively accounts for only one of the many anatomical\ndifferences between man and his caudal progenitor. For why should the\nloss of his tail have resulted in the changed chemistry of the monkey's\nbrain? or in the increased involutions of his brain even? The specific\ndifferences between the present and ancestral types are very numerous\nand demand separate classification. Their variability runs through every\nbone, muscle, tissue, fibre, nerve. Their blood corpuscles are not the\nsame. The chemistry of their bones essentially differs. The nerves are\ndifferently bundled and differently strung. In intonations of\nvoice--symmetry of arms, legs, chest--hairlessness of body, and aquatic\nand land habits, the frog is a much nearer approach to man than the\nmonkey, as all caricaturists, delineating aldermanic proportions, will\nagree. And Mr. Darwin might have immortalized himself by deriving the\nbuilders of the ancient pile-habitations and other primitive water-rats\nand croakers of the Swiss lakes, from this tailless batrachian. For\neverybody knows, or thinks he knows, how the frog lost his tail. If he\ndidn't wag it off, he certainly absorbed its waggishness as a\ndistinguishing characteristic of the \"coming man\"--the future Artemas\nWards and Mark Twains of the race. This ancestral origin will also\naccount for the otherwise unaccountable proclivity of all human\njuveniles to play at the game of leap-frog! Besides, it would have\nrelieved Mr. Darwin from one of the greatest perplexities he has had to\nencounter. As he derives man from a hairy quadruped, the absence of hair\non the human body, is a phenomenal fact that gives him great trouble. He\nagrees that it does not result from \"natural selection,\" as he says \"the\nloss of hair is an inconvenience and probably an injury to man.\" Nor\ndoes he suppose it to result from what he calls \"correlated\ndevelopment.\" He is more puzzled over this problem of divestiture than\nany other, and finds the solution of it only in \"sexual selection.\" That\nis, he assumes that among our semi-human progenitors, far back in the\nTertiary or some other period, some female monkeys were less hirsute\nthan others, and that they naturally preferred males possessing similar\ncharacteristics. These divergencies were thus commenced, and, by\ncontinuous \"sexual selection,\" the infirmity (for such he regards the\nloss of hair) was propagated until the race was almost entirely denuded\nor bereft of this covering. In the same way he accounts for nearly all\nthe differentiations of the race, among the various tribes now or\nformerly inhabiting the earth. All have sprung from the same semi-human\nprogenitors--_apes that lost their capacity to subsist as apes, and\nhence found it necessary to subsist as men_!\n\nThe law of degeneracy has, therefore, had quite as much to do with human\norigins as that of progressive development. In fact, it is the paramount\nlaw from a Darwinian stand-point. For the loss of hair and of the\nprehensile power to climb trees are both conceded by Mr. Darwin to be\nserious defects and drawbacks in the ape family.\n\nBut the law of sexual selection, as treated by the evolutionists, is not\nscientifically accurate, nor is it true in fact. The loving tendency of\nnature is to opposites, not likes. The positive and negative poles are\nthose that play into each other with most marvellous effect. Each repels\nits like and rushes to the embrace of its opposite. Extremes lovingly meet\neverywhere. A brunette selects a blonde and a blonde a brunette, as a\ngeneral rule in matrimony. A tall man or woman, with rare exceptions,\nchooses a short companion for life. Dark eyes delight in those that are\nlight, and _vice-versa_. Everywhere nature seeks diversity, not\nsimilitude. The gayest and brightest feathered songster craves\ncompanionship in modest and unobtrusive colors. Diversity is the law of\nlife, as equality, or versimilitude, is that of death. Neither natural\nselection, nor sexual selection, runs counter to this law. If Mr. Darwin's\ntheory were true, that likes selected likes, then the two marked extremes\nwhich should have characterized the race, soon after its emergence from\nthe semi-human state, should have been giants and pigmies, Gargantuas and\nLilliputs. Otherwise \"sexual selection,\" as treated by its author, plays\nno intelligible part in the economy of nature, except to counterbalance\nvariability, not to propagate it.\n\nBut the Darwinian assumption that the primeval man, or his immediate\nape-like progenitor, came through \"natural selection,\" that is, through\nthe \"survival of the fittest,\" is subject to one or two other objections\nwhich we shall briefly notice. And the first objection is not altogether\na technical one. The term \"fittest,\" as applied to a monkey, has at once\na definite and comprehensive significance to us. It implies the presence\nof whatever is most perfect of its kind in the monkey _as_ a monkey, and\nnot in the monkey _as_ something else than a monkey. They are all\nadmirably adapted for climbing trees; and it is this adaptation that\nsecures them safety, or complete immunity, in shelter from their\nenemies. To say that nature selects the fittest for them--for any\nspecies of monkey--by converting their forefeet into rudimentary hands,\nwith a loss of prehension and no corresponding advantages in locomotion,\nis to use language without any appreciable significance to us. We can\nonly say that what is fittest for the monkey is ill-fitted for man, and\nthe reverse. This is all we can definitely predicate of them, from what\nwe know of their anatomical structure, and the diversified uses to which\nit may be put.\n\nThe fact is, as the Bible genesis shows, that every living thing is\nperfect of its kind, and whatever is perfect admits of no Darwinian\nvariations or improvements for the better. And the simple statement of\nthis undeniable proposition is, we submit, a complete refutation of\nDarwinism. When the waters and the earth were commanded to bring forth\nabundantly of every living creature and every living thing, \"it was so,\nand God saw that it was good,\" that is, everything perfect of its kind,\nand in its kind. With this single limitation as to kind, a rattlesnake is\nno less perfect than a Plato or a John Howard.\n\nWhen we consider man's upright position; the firmness and steadiness with\nwhich he plants his foot upon the earth; when we examine the mechanism of\nhis hand, and the wonderful and almost unlimited range it possesses for\ndiversified use; when we see how ill-fitted he is for climbing trees, yet\nhow express and admirable for climbing among the stars, even to the\noutermost milky-way, the idea that what is fittest for him is fit for the\nchattering monkey, is too absurd to give us pause. And yet how does Mr.\nDarwin know that the monkey has been climbing up, all these hundred\nthousand or million years, into man, as one of the congenital freaks of\nnature, and not man shambling down into the monkey as a reverse\ncongenital freak. Children have sometimes been born with a singular\nresemblance to the ape family, but no ape has ever, to Mr. Darwin's\nknowledge, produced issue more manlike than itself. The divergencies run\nthe wrong way to meet the conditions of the development theory. We have\nhad nearly five thousand years in which to mark these transitional\nchanges, and yet the monkey of to-day is identical with that painted on\nthe walls of ancient Meroe. In all this time he has made no advance in\nthe genetic relation; and if we turn back the lithographic pages of\nnature for a hundred times five thousand years, we shall find no\nessential departure from aboriginal types.\n\nBut the Darwinian hypothesis admits of a more conclusive answer than we\nhave yet given. Past time, it will be conceded, is theoretically if not\nactually infinite; and in all past time, nature has been tugging away at\nMr. Darwin's problem of the \"survival of the fittest.\" It is no two\nhundred and fifty thousand years, nor two hundred and fifty millions, but\nan infinite duration of past time that covers the period in which she has\nbeen wrestling with this problem. How successfully has she solved it? In\nthe Darwinian sense of the term \"fittest,\" she has not so much as stated\nher first equation or extracted the root of her first power. She is\nmanifestly as much puzzled over the problem as Mr. Darwin himself. He\nfails to see that the \"survival of the fittest,\" necessarily implies, or\ncarries with it, the correlative proposition,--the \"non-survival of the\nunfit.\" And when such a law has been operative for an infinite duration of\npast time, the \"unfit,\" however infinitely distributed at first, should\nhave disappeared altogether, many thousands, if not millions, of years\nago. If the evolutionists are dealing with vast problems, and assigning to\nnature, unlimited factors to express the totality of her unerring\noperations, they must be careful to limit the time in which any one of her\ngiven labors is to be accomplished. If she makes any progress at all, an\ninfinite duration of past time should enable her to complete her work just\nas effectually as an infinite duration of time to come.\n\nBut by what law of \"natural selection,\" appertaining to a single pair of\nold world monkeys, have their offspring advanced to this regal state of\nmanhood, while all other pairs have remained stationary, or precisely\nwhere they were two hundred and fifty thousand years ago or more? Why\nthis exceptional divergence in the case of a single pair of monkeys? Why\nthis anomalous, aberrant, and thoroughly eccentric movement on the part\nof nature? We had supposed that her operations were uniform--conformable\nto fixed laws of movement. The doctrine of the \"survival of the fittest\"\nimplies this. Why then, should nature, in her unerring operations, have\nselected the fittest in respect to a single pair of Catarrhine monkeys,\nand at the same time rejected the fittest in the case of a million other\npairs? If she had selected only the fittest in respect to this old world\nstock of monkeys, the entire Catarrhine family should have disappeared\nin the next higher or fitter group--a group nowhere to be found in\ngeological distribution. The break between man and this Catarrhine\nmonkey covers quite a series of links in the genetic vinculum;[37] and\nyet between the two we find no high form of a low type fitting into a\nlow form of a high type, as we manifestly should, to account for all the\ndiversified changes that must have taken place in the interim. And what\nis true of the types is measurably true of the classes within the types,\nas well as of the orders within the classes. Wide deviations in forms,\nas in characteristics, would seem to be the invariable rule; the\nblending of type into type, except perhaps in remote relationships, is\nnowhere visible.\n\nBut if \"variation\" and \"natural selection\" have played important parts in\nthe economy of nature, why may not \"specific creation\" have played _its_\npart also? Positive science can hardly flatter itself with the belief that\nit is rolling back the mystery of the universe to a point beyond which\n\"specific creation\" might not have commenced, or the divine fiat been put\nforth. To believe in the possibility of a rational synthesis, limited to\nsensible experience, or phenomenal facts within our reach, that shall\nclimb from law to law, or from concrete fact to abstract conception, until\nit shall reach the _Ultima Thule_ of all law, is to carry the faith of the\nscientist beyond the most transcendental belief of the theologian, and\nmake him a greater dupe to his illusions than was ever cloistered in a\nmonastery or affected austerity therein as a balm to the flesh. We may\nsubstitute new dogmatisms for old ones, but we can never postulate a\nprinciple that shall make the general laws of nature any less mysterious\nthan the partial or exceptional, or that shall in the long run, render\n\"natural selection\" any more comprehensible, or acceptable to the rational\nintuition, than \"specific creation.\" For while one class of scientists is\nclimbing the ladder of synthesis, by assigning a reason for a higher law\nthat may be predicated of a lower, we shall find the broader and more\nanalytical mind accepting the higher mystery for the lower, and, by\ndivesting its faith of all metaphysical incumbrance, landing in the belief\nof an all-encompassing law, which shall comprehend the entire assemblage\nof known laws and facts in the universe. And the natural drift of the\nhuman mind is ever towards this abstract conception--this one\nall-encompassing law of the universe. It steadily speculates in this\ndirection, and some of the highest triumphs of our age, in physical as\nwell as metaphysical science, are measurably due to this tendency. The\nscientific mind is not confined wholly to experimental research. It is\nstimulated to higher contemplations, and is constantly disposed to make\nlarger and more comprehensive groupings of analogous facts. It is fast\ncoming to regard light, heat, electricity, magnetism, gravitation,\nchemical affinity, molecular force, and even Mr. Darwin's little\nwhirligig, as only so many manifestations or expressions of one and the\nsame force in the universe--that ultimate, all-encompassing, divine force\n(not to speak unscientifically) that upholds the order of the heavens,\n\"binds the sweet influences of the Pleiades, brings forth Mazzaroth in his\nseason, and guides Arcturus with his suns.\"\n\nIt is the boast of the Darwinian systematizers that their development\ntheory not only harmonizes with, but admirably supplements and out-rounds\nthe grander speculation of Laplace, termed the \"Nebular Hypothesis,\" which\nregards the universe as having originally consisted of uniformly diffused\nmatter, filling all space, which subsequently became aggregated by\ngravitation, much after the manner of Mr. Darwin's little whirligig, into\nan infinite number of sun-systems, occupying inconceivably vast areas in\nspace. Of the correctness of this hypothesis it is unnecessary to speak.\nIt is to the Darwinian speculation what the infinite is to the\ninfinitessimal, and we only refer to it to bring out the vastness of the\nconception as compared to the latter theory, and to predicate thereon the\nmore conclusive induction that an Infinite Intelligence directs and\nsuperintends all.\n\nIn an area in the Milky-way not exceeding one-tenth of the moon's disc,\nMr. Herschel computes the number of stars at not less than twenty\nthousand, with clusters of nebulae lying still beyond. As we know that no\nbodies shining by reflected light could be visible at such enormous\ndistances, we are left to conclude that each of these twinkling points is\na sun, dispensing light and heat to probably as many planets as hold their\ncourses about the central orb in our own system. From the superior\nmagnitude of many of the stars, as compared with the sun, we may\nreasonably infer that many of these vast sun-systems occupy a much larger\nfield in space than our own. This would give an area in space of not less\nthan six thousand millions of miles as the field occupied by each of these\nsun-systems. And as the distance between each of these systems and its\nnearest neighbor is probably not less than that of our sun from the\nnearest star, we have the enormous and inconceivable distance of not less\nthan nineteen billions of miles separating each one of these twenty\nthousand stars or sun-systems, occupying a space in the heavens apparently\nno bigger than a man's hand. And yet Infinity, as we apprehend the term,\nlies beyond this vast cluster of constellated worlds! Where is Mr.\nDarwin's little whirligig in the comparison, or Mr. Emerson's vegetal\nstomach, or Mr. Herbert Spencer's \"potential factors,\" to express the\nsum-total of all this totality,--this gigantic assemblage of stars\nclustered about a single point in the Milky-way? The human mind absolutely\nreels--staggers bewildered and amazed--under the load of conceptions\nimposed by these few twinkling stars, and is ready to exclaim,--\n\n  \"Oh, star-eyed Science, hast thou wandered there,\n  To waft us back a message of despair?\"\n\nBut when we reflect that all this vast aggregation of sun systems, visible\nin the telescopic field, is not stationary, but is revolving with\ninconceivable rapidity about some unknown and infinitely remote centre of\nthe universe, how immeasurably vast does the conception become, and how\nunutterably puerile and fatuous the thought of _Mr. Darwin's little\nwhirligig as the author of it all!_ No wonder the inspired Psalmist\nexclaims; \"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth\nhis handiwork.\" But listen to the Darwinian exclamation: \"The heavens\ndeclare the glory of my little whirligig, and the firmament showeth the\nimmensity of my little ovules.\" With the veil of faith and inspiration\nlifted, the words of the Psalmist swell into the highest cherubic anthem,\nwhile those of Mr. Darwin hardly rise above the squeak of a mole burrowing\nbeneath the glebe!\n\nAnd what presumptuous mortal shall say that this infinitely remote centre\nof the universe, around which revolves this infinite number of\nsun-systems, is not the seat and throne of the Infinite One himself--the\nSovereign Intelligence and Power of the universe, directing and upholding\nall? We know that some of the stars are travelling about this central\npoint of the heavens at a pace exceeding 194,000 miles an hour, or with\nnearly three times the rapidity of our earth in its orbit. That there must\nbe infinite power, not physical, at this unknown centre of the universe,\nto hold these myriads of sun-systems in their courses, is a logical\ninduction as irrefragable as that the sun holds his planets in their\norbits. And if infinite power is predicable upon this central point, why\nnot infinite intelligence also? Intelligence, we know, controls and\nutilizes all power in this world; why not all power in the universe? It\ncan utilize every drop of water that thunders down Niagara to-day, as it\nhas already seized upon the lightnings of heaven to make them our\npost-boy. This is what finite intelligence--that insignificant factor that\nscience would eliminate from the universe--can do; then what may not\nInfinite Intelligence accomplish?\n\nBut the Darwinian systematizers object that science must limit itself to a\ncoordination of the known relations of things in the universe, or deal\nonly with phenomenal facts, not dogmatisms; forgetting that they dogmatize\nquite as extensively, in constructing their chain of generation, as the\ntheologians do in adhering to the Bible genesis. No theologian objects to\na rational synthesis of phenomena, limited to sensible experience; but, in\nclimbing from law to law, he reasonably enough insists, that, when\nconcrete facts rise into abstract conceptions, the highest round in the\nladder shall not be knocked out for the accommodation of Robert G.\nIngersoll or any other boasted descendant of a gorilla. And he also\ninsists that when _a priori_ speculation is lost in abstract conceptions,\nthe highest must necessarily press alone upon the intuitions of\nconsciousness, where all generalizations cease, and all synthesis is\nundeniably at an end. Here, in this mysterious chamber of the soul, we\nstand silent and alone, with only dim and shadowy phantoms about us, as if\nin the august presence of Deity itself.\n\nBut how does scientific speculation propose to stifle these intuitions of\nconsciousness--reduce them to the least of all potential factors in the\nuniverse? We will take the very latest of these speculations. In\nsupplementing both the Darwinian theory and the grander speculation of\nLaplace, the scientists, so called, tell us that the process of\naggregation, or the turning out of new worlds in the universe, is still\ngoing on; but that the time is coming when all the primeval potency or\nenergy, originally inhering in diffused matter, will have exhausted itself\nin actual energy, and that then all light, life and motion in the\nuniverse, will cease and be at an end. This dissipation of potential\nenergy is to result, they say, in a played-out universe, as it has already\nresulted, they claim, in a played-out moon, if not countless other\nheavenly bodies.[38] All the exterior planets, or a majority of them at\nleast, are to be placed in this category of dismantled worlds, or those in\nwhich all life has hopelessly ceased and become extinct. All has utterly\ndisappeared, or, to paraphrase one of Pope's couplets,\n\n  \"Beast, bird, fish, insect--what no eye can scan,\n  Nor glass can reach--from zoophyte to man.\"\n\nAll these dismantled planets, and satellites to planets, are only so many\nimmense cinders--mere refuse slag--of no conceivable interest to science,\nexcept to predicate the ultimate conclusion--\"a played-out universe,\nresulting from a played-out potency within the universe.\" The magnificent\nclockwork of the heavens will then have run down, with no Darwinian\nwhirligig to wind it up again, and the terrible reality of Byron's dream,\nwhich it would seem was not all a dream, be realized in the bright sun\nextinguished, the stars darkling the eternal space, rayless and pathless,\nand the icy earth swung blind and blackening in the moonless air.\n\nOh, if this be star-eyed science, give us anything in place of it!\nBlear-eyed bigotry in his cloistered den, mumbling unintelligible prayers,\nand believing that man is to be saved, not by what he does, but by a\n_credo_ only, is far preferable to it. But oh, how unspeakably preferable\nthe simple faith of the star-led Magi, who\n\n  \"Deeming the light that in the east was seen\n       An earnest and a prophecy of rest\n     To weary wanderers, such as they had been,\"\n\ncame on that bleak December night, 1880 years ago, to pay their homage to\nthe Christ-child--the long expected Messiah--the Redeemer of the world!\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n[1]: It may be proper, however, to state that the tenth and concluding\n     chapter was originally written as a lecture, and delivered about a\n     year ago in New Haven, Boston, and at other points. A request for its\n     publication has induced the author to place it in this volume, with\n     the portion referring to the Bible genesis omitted. It will be found\n     germane to the general subject.\n\n[2]: \"Without this latent presence of the 'I am,' all modes of existence\n     in the external world flit before us as colored shadows, with no\n     greater depth, root, or fixure, than the image of a rock hath in the\n     gliding stream, or the rainbow on the fast-sailing rain\n     storm.\"--_Coleridge's_ \"_Comments on Essays_.\"\n\n[3]: And science that is not purely inductive--i.e. primarily based on\n     the inviolability of our intuitions--is no science at all, but the\n     sheerest possible speculation.\n\n[4]: This presence of an active living principle in nature, one originally\n     assigned as the \"_divina particula aur\u00e6_\" of every living thing, is\n     frequently referred to in the higher inspirational moods of our\n     poets. Wordsworth exquisitely refers to it in the following lines of\n     his \"Excursion:\"--\n\n       \"To every form of being is assigned\n       An _active_ principle: howe'er removed\n       From sense and observation, it subsists\n       In all things, in all nature, in the stars\n       Of azure heaven, the unenduring clouds;\n       In flower and tree, in every pebbly stone\n       That paves the brooks.\"\n\n[5]: The existence of vital units is conceded by some of the staunchest\n     materialists, such as Herbert Spencer, Professor Bastian and others.\n     Professor Bastian says: \"The countless myriads of living units which\n     have been evolved in different ages of the world's history, must, in\n     each period, have given rise to innumerable multitudes of what have\n     been called 'trees of life.'\" He insists, however, that they have\n     been \"evolved\" from something, or by some unknown process. But we\n     shall show further on that a \"unit\" can neither be _evolved_ nor\n     _involved_, and that this is as true of vital units as of the\n     mathematical or chemical unit. Neither evolution nor involution will\n     ever effect the value of a unit.\n\n[6]: According to Aristotle, the great world-_ordainer_ is the constant\n     world-_sustainer_.\n\n[7]: The definition which Professor Robinson, in his Lexicon of the New\n     Testament, gives of the word \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1, as connected with the \"divine\n     life,\" entirely harmonizes with this view of the subject. He says: Trop.\n     I John 3, 9, \u03c0\u1f03\u03c2 \u03cc \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03d1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (\u03d1\u03b5\u1f44\u03bd) \u03b5\u03bd \u1fb6\u03bd\u03c4\u1ff6\n     \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76 _i.e._ the germ or principle of divine life through which he\n     is begotten of god, \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1f52\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n[8]: Professor Schmidt, of the University of Strasburg, who insists that\n     species are only relatively stable, admits that they remain\n     persistent as long as they exist under the same external conditions.\n     Time is, therefore, not a factor in the mutation of species. Nor are\n     environing conditions factors, except as a failure of conditions\n     results in the disappearance of species, as the presence of\n     conditions results in their appearance.\n\n[9]: Says M. Ch. Bonnet, in his \"La Paling\u00e9u\u00e9sie Philosophique;\" \"Il est\n     de la plus parfaite \u00e9vidence que la matiere est susceptible d'une\n     infinit\u00e9 de mouvemens divers, et de modifications diverses,\" and this\n     is the universal claim of the materialists.\n\n[10]: Professor Burdach (as trad, par Jourdan), in speaking of the\n      productive power of nature, says, \"Limit\u00e9e quant \u00e1 l' \u00e9tendue de ses\n      manifestations, elle continue toujottrs d' agir pour la conservation\n      de ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 cr\u00e9\u00e9, et, quoiqu' elle ne maintenue les formes\n      organiques sup\u00e9rieures que par la seule propagation, il ne r\u00e9pugne\n      point au bon sens de penser qu' aujourd' hui encore elle a la\n      puissance de produire les formes inf\u00e9rieures avec des el\u00e9ments\n      h\u00e9t\u00e9rog\u00e9nes, comme elle a cr\u00e9\u00e9 originairement tout ce qui poss\u00e9de l'\n      organisation.\" This shows that its author believed in the\n      possibility of the \"superior organic forms,\" like the mastodon,\n      megatherium, etc. from the \"heterogenetic elements\"--those\n      undergoing every conceivable change--as well as the \"inferior\n      forms.\" At all events, it is a legitimate induction from\n      materialistic premises.\n\n[11]: This point is conclusively made by Professor Burdach, who says (we\n      quote from Jourdan); \"La tendance interieure \u00e1 la configuration\n      existe avant sa manifestation.\" And by his _tendance interieure_ he\n      must mean some vital or other law, equivalent to an _entia_ in\n      matter, which results _in_, not _from_ manifestation.\n\n[12]: Goethe borrowed his idea of an archetypal world from Plato and the\n      Eleatic school. They held that the world was originated, and not\n      eternal; that it was framed by the Creator after a perfect\n      archetype, one eternally existing in the divine mind, if not an\n      actual soul-world of which our own is but the reflex.\n\n[13]: In a note to Prof. Bastian's \"Beginnings of Life\" (vol II. p. 537)\n      an important fact is mentioned as obtained from the writings of Dr.\n      Schneider, to wit, that _Nematoids_ (microscopical forms) may be\n      \"obtained at will,\" almost as readily as mushrooms, by a process\n      entirely independent of spores. For instance, small pieces of beef\n      were carefully examined to see if they contained any of the ova of\n      Nematoids, and, finding none, they were buried in a small quantity\n      of earth (also carefully examined for the presence of Nematoids or\n      their ova) in a gallipot. \"After three weeks,\" says Prof. B. \"this\n      earth was found to be absolutely swarming with two kinds of\n      Nematoids--quite different from any forms which I had previously,\n      seen, although I had been seeking them for more than two years\n      previously in all sorts of situations.\" The reason why he had not\n      found them previously, was because the \"necessary conditions\" for\n      their appearance had not been obtained by him, or he had not sought\n      for them in their proper environment. They were not produced \"at\n      will,\" but were the natural outgrowth of conditions, as much so as\n      the spores of fungi, which make their appearance whenever and\n      wherever the necessary environing conditions exist. According to Dr.\n      Gros, it takes about three weeks for these Nematoid forms to develop\n      into a reproductive state.\n\n[14]: The necessity of turning plants and animals into \"tramps\" is just as\n      great in the case of \"Evolution\" as in that of \"specific creation in\n      pairs.\" In both cases, we must insist upon geneological\n      consanguinity. For the chances of any two highly specialized forms,\n      originally starting on different lines of divergence, and ultimately\n      reaching individual identity, both in form and characteristics, is\n      an impossible problem in the determination of chances. Consequently,\n      Mr. Darwin finds the necessity of accounting for the presence of\n      northern forms in the southern hemisphere, and the reverse, just as\n      great as in the Linn\u00e6an theory, which was fully accepted by Cuvier.\n\n[15]: Burdach, in his \"_Trait\u00e9 Physiologie\" (Trad. par Jourdan_. 1837)\n      says: \"Effectivement nous rencontrons des traces de vie dans toute\n      existence quelconque.\" This is as broad a panspermic statement as\n      can be made, and is only true of inorganic matter so far as\n      vegetable life is concerned, including such infusorial, mycologic,\n      and cryptogamic forms as may lie so near to the \"force vegetative\"\n      of Needham as to be indistinguishable from it.\n\n[16]: In the case of volcanic islands, the upheavals were undoubtedly\n      accompanied by deposits of mud, sand (ocean detritus), marine\n      vegetation, and more or less animal matter, and these organic\n      substances were washed down by the rains into the broken valleys and\n      plains below, when land vegetation almost immediately made its\n      appearance; not because seeds may have drifted thither by any of the\n      different agencies that have been mentioned, but because organic\n      matter can no more help bringing forth life in some form, when\n      conditions favor, than salt water, when exposed to evaporation, can\n      help crystallizing into its symmetrically-arranged salts. And the\n      same would be true of all the coral islands, bringing up the organic\n      matter of the sea to the influence of the light, the rains, and the\n      dews. The islands thus formed in the Pacific Ocean begin to exhibit\n      vegetable life almost as soon as they make their appearance above\n      the reefs, and a line of sea-beach is formed about them.\n\n[17]: These, while presenting the most varied and diverse forms of\n      infusorial life, are nevertheless the most constant and abundant\n      type. They abound more or less in all organic infusions. Ehrenberg,\n      however, holds that they are no more animal than vegetal forms. They\n      vary in length from 1/15000 to 1/2000 of an inch, and are\n      consequently too minute to be satisfactorily classified in respect\n      to all their diversified characteristics.\n\n[18]: The extent of the southern ice-cap may at least be approximately\n      reached from explorations already made. Capt. Weddell, in 1823,\n      extended his explorations southward to within about 15\u00b0 of the\n      south pole, where he found an open sea. Capt. Ross, in 1842,\n      approached to within about 13\u00b0 of the same pole, without serious\n      obstruction. It is true that, in the following year, he encountered\n      ice barriers near the line of the antarctic circle, but they were\n      floating barriers coming down from Weddell's open sea. Capt.\n      Wilkes, in 1840, explored a considerable portion of the Antarctic\n      Continent, lying almost entirely within the antarctic circle. Other\n      explorations have been made, showing that the southern ice-cap does\n      not probably extend, continuously at least, much farther north than\n      78\u00b0 or 80\u00b0, or to within some ten or twelve degrees of the south\n      pole, independently of the packs of drifting ice in the otherwise\n      open seas.\n\n[19]: The truth or falsity of \"Evolution\" depends entirely on the\n      successful solution of this problem, for the chances are\n      quintillions to ones that no two identical forms could have\n      originated from different centres, or from the same centre on\n      divergent lines, and ever reached identically the same results. And\n      how any two forms should happen to be sexually paired, on the same\n      or different lines of divergence, is one of those inexplicable\n      mysteries which must puzzle Herbert Spencer in all his labyrinthian\n      searches into \"Force-correlation,\" \"Differentiation,\" \"the Dynamic\n      Force of Molecules,\" etc., etc. However successful he may be in\n      other directions, he will inevitably fail in this. We must fall back\n      on the grand Old Bible genesis for the solution of this difficulty,\n      where every living thing was commanded to produce seed, or multiply\n      and replenish the waters and the earth with offspring.\n\n[20]: These transcendental or ideal forms may be said to correspond to the\n      \"spiritual essences\" of Plato. They are the eternal, immutable\n      principles which are discernible to the eye of the soul, as the\n      sensible objects they represent are discernible to the eye of the\n      body. Modern metaphysics may deem them mere abstractions, but a\n      higher realistic philosophy will treat them as substantive forms, of\n      which the objective reality is but the shadow.\n\n[21]: Herbert Spencer may be quoted as authority on this point. He says:\n      \"There is invariably, and necessarily, a conformity between the\n      vital functions of any organism, and the _conditions_ in which it is\n      placed ... We find that every animal is limited to a certain range\n      of climate; every plant to certain zones of latitude and elevation.\"\n      And the same law holds good as to the marine fauna and flora, each\n      specific form being confined to its own sea-depth, or distance north\n      or south from the thermal equator.\n\n[22]: Speaking of the ultimate principles or elements of matter, Plato is\n      quoted by Humboldt as exclaiming with modest diffidence, \"God alone,\n      and those whom he loves among men, know what they are.\" It is only\n      those who seek to eliminate God from the universe that speak with\n      confident flippancy on the subject of molecular machinery and\n      force-correlations.\n\n[23]: As long as the evolutionists cannot agree among themselves as to\n      what constitutes the process of evolution, it can hardly be expected\n      that the public will accept their speculations as conclusive\n      inductions. Professor Bastian, who strongly commits himself to the\n      doctrine, thinks the word \"evolution\" arbitrary and open to many\n      objections, while Mr. Herbert Spencer says;--\"The antithetical word\n      Involution would much more truly express the nature of the process.\"\n\n[24]: \"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of\n      God dwelleth in you?\" 1 Cor. 3. xvi.\n\n[25]: Dr. Drysdale, in his work on the \"Protoplasmic Theory of Life,\"\n      says: \"Matter cannot change its state of motion or rest without the\n      influence of some force from without. True spontaneity of movement\n      is, therefore, just as impossible to it as to what we call dead\n      matter.... So we are compelled to admit the existence of an exciting\n      cause in the form of some force from without to give the initial\n      impulse in all vital actions.\" In all life-manifestations, this\n      \"force from without,\" must be a pre-existing vital principle\n      operating to effect the otherwise impossible change in matter.\n\n[26]: A favorite set-phrase of Professor Bastian in speaking of\n      morphological cells or \"units,\" as he sometimes calls them.\n\n[27]: That great and justly celebrated naturalist, Buffon, in speaking of\n      the universal origination of the lower forms of animal life by a\n      process termed, in his time, \"spontaneous generation,\" says: \"There\n      are, perhaps, as many living things, both animal and vegetable,\n      which are produced by the fortuitous aggregations of 'mol\u00e9cules\n      organiques,' as there are others which reproduce themselves by a\n      constant succession of generations.\" It is said that Buffon was for\n      some time associated with the Abb\u00e9 Needham in his experiments in\n      vital directions, and was much influenced by them. So that it is by\n      no means certain that he did not accept the Abb\u00e9's \"force\n      v\u00e9g\u00e9tative\" in place of his more materialistic views respecting\n      \"mol\u00e9cules organiques.\" At all events, his statement that as many\n      living things appear in nature independently of reproducing causes\n      as by successive generation, is no doubt true.\n\n[28]: M. Tr\u00e9viranus, who followed Spallanzani and M. Bonnet in these flask\n      experimentations, first noticed the important fact that the\n      animalcul\u00e6 appearing in different organic infusions, depended on\n      the nature and quality of the infusions themselves, and that the\n      changed conditions of the same infusion produced new and independent\n      forms of life.\n\n[29]: Leibnitz, as quoted by M. Bonnet, says:--\"Que l'Entendement Divin\n      \u00e9toit la religion \u00e9ternelle des Essences; parce que tout ce qui\n      existe existoit comme de toute \u00e9ternit\u00e9 comme possible ou en id\u00e9e\n      dans l'entendement de Dieu. J'exprimerai cette v\u00e9rit\u00e9 sublime en\n      d'autres termes: le plan entier d'univers existoit de toute Eternit\u00e9\n      dans l'entendement du Supr\u00eame Architecte. Tou tes les parties de\n      l'univers et jusqu' an moindre atome \u00e9toient deffin\u00e9s dans ce plan.\n      Tous les changemens qui devoient survenir aux diff\u00e9rentes pieces de\n      ce Tout immense y avoient aussi leurs repr\u00e9sentations. Chaque etre y\n      \u00e9toit figur\u00e9 par ses characteres propres: et l'acte par lequel la\n      Souveraine Puissance a r\u00e9alis\u00e9 ce plan, est ce que nous nommons la\n      Cr\u00e9ation.\"\n\n[30]: Here is a fact given us by Dr. F. Hall, of Wallingford, Conn.: In a\n      peat meadow in that town, owned by him, which was at no time subject\n      to overflow, a large quantity of peat had been removed at different\n      intervals of time, when the excavations naturally filled with water.\n      In these excavations there appeared not only the _Cyprinidae_ in\n      considerable numbers, but fresh water clams which grew to be as\n      large as those in the most favored streams. They made their\n      appearance the very first season after the peat was removed, and\n      have flourished there ever since. In no other portions of the meadow\n      were there any fish or clams ever noticed before, nor was there any\n      other source of water-supply than the rain-falls in that locality.\n\n[31]: Professor Beale, in one of his very latest works says: \"Of the\n      chemical and physical forms of energy something is known, but of\n      the relationship of the so called _vital_ energy, nothing has\n      been proved. We only know that the influence it exerts is\n      altogether different from that which has been traced to physical\n      and chemical energy.\"\n\n[32]: It is admitted, even in the case of _Bacteria_, whose movements are\n      the most uniform, that they are sometimes so inert and languid as to\n      show no movements at all; while, at other times, they exhibit mere\n      Brownian movements or those no more nearly allied to \"life\" than the\n      minute particles of carbon escaping from the flame of a kerosene\n      lamp. And among the most distinguished microscopists, it is a\n      question whether these infusorial forms, those exhibiting the most\n      active oscillations, are really vegetal or animal in origin; in\n      other words, whether they are _Fungus-spores_ or _Torula_-cells, or\n      whether they may not be some intermediate forms.\n\n[33]: The difficulty of assigning any definitional value to a \"primordial\n      germ\" is due to the vagueness of idea attached to it in the popular\n      mind, as well as to the diversified theories and speculations of the\n      scientists concerning the origin of life. We can only define it as a\n      \"vital unit,\" as the chemist defines his smallest conceivable\n      quantity--his \"primary least\"--of an element, as a \"chemical unit.\"\n\n[34]: Let two comrades be shot at the same instant in battle, the one\n      through the heart, and the other through the arm, shattering it\n      badly. What is there to prevent the surgeon from taking a piece of\n      bone out of the arm of the man shot through the heart and instantly\n      killed, and using it to make good the arm of the man still living?\n      Apparently nothing but that the dead man's bone will not knit. He\n      may not have been dead five minutes, and Professor Beale's bioplasts\n      might still be at work spinning matter and weaving tissue for the\n      integrity of the displaced bone. Why will it not knit? Simply\n      because the vital principle that differentiates matter is gone--can\n      no longer act. If the integrity of the bone depended on the action\n      of the molecules, and not on the vital principle, there is no reason\n      why this experiment should not be a success. For the molecules are\n      all there, and their action will not be disturbed for hours after\n      the death of the man shot through the heart.\n\n[35]: It is safe to adhere to the Leibnitzian axiom, _Natura non agit\n      saltatim_.\n\n[36]: One of the most cultured classes of Christian believers in our day,\n      holds that \"all life is from the Lord;\" that \"He is the fountain,\n      and we only the streams thence.\" And this, they claim, is true of\n      all life. To \"take away our breath,\" therefore, is to cut off this\n      stream perpetually flowing from its invisible source--the fountain\n      of all Life. When scientific methods substitute for a first cause a\n      mere resultant effect, all primary principles disappear in their\n      intermediates.\n\n[37]: Professor Marsh, of Yale College, has predicted that the \"missing\n      link\" will be found in Borneo--evidently not crediting Mr. Stanley's\n      statement about its presence in the interior of Africa. But one\n      \"missing link\" is hardly enough; there ought to be an extensive\n      family of them to complete Mr. Darwin's plexus. From the lowest\n      genetic form to the anthropoid ape is a distance which does not half\n      cover the length of this plexus--the immense gap between the monkey\n      and the man being decidedly the greater length of chain. And yet the\n      first half of the chain is traversed by innumerable forms--millions\n      of links, so to speak. How, then, is the greater length of the\n      plexus to be covered by a single \"missing link?\" A long line of\n      caudal ancestry must be dug up, therefore, in Borneo, and shipped to\n      the Peabody Museum, before this tremendous stretch in the chain of\n      animated nature is satisfactorily accounted for. Borneo must be\n      exceedingly rich in osteologic remains, even to bridge the chasm\n      between its own ourang-outangs and the Dyaks, or aboriginal\n      inhabitants, of that island.\n\n[38]: This daring hypothesis of the materialists is so utterly repugnant\n      to all our ideas of a perfected Cosmos, that we have no patience\n      with those advancing it. It is, at best, speculation run mad, and is\n      based on no other assumption than that of the inherent\n      imperfectibility of the universe as it came from the hand of God, or\n      from the dynamic play of molecules extending throughout vast\n      geognostic epochs.\n\n      From a materialistic stand-point this assumption of imperfectibility\n      inevitably runs into the _reductio ad absurdum_. For if, in the play\n      of the material forces of the universe, an infinite duration of past\n      time has effected nothing but mutually disturbing and re-adjusting\n      movements and relations among cosmical bodies, then an infinite\n      duration of time to come can effect nothing but similarly mutual\n      adjustments and re-adjustments in respect to such bodies. With an\n      infinity of time, space, matter and motion, everywhere presenting a\n      unity of phenomena in the universe, \"there can never be anything,\"\n      according to the great Stagirite, \"unconnected or out of place, as\n      in a bad tragedy.\" Conservation must, therefore, be the rule, and\n      desinence the impossible exception.\n\n      But these adherents of inherent imperfectibility instance the fact\n      of vanished and variable stars, as well as those that have suddenly\n      appeared, and, after brief periods of intense brilliancy, as\n      suddenly disappeared, to show that there are mighty disturbances in\n      the sidereal heavens which entirely negative the idea of\n      \"conservation\" as a geognostic law. But the phenomena of variable\n      stars, with all their apparent irregularity of motion and\n      fluctuations in luminosity, are now being traced to definite and\n      well-determined laws of motion, if not of light, while the theory of\n      extinguished and disappearing stars belongs exclusive to the age of\n      Tycho Brahe. Where there is one self-luminious body (or sun) in the\n      interstellary spaces, there are probably not less than forty\n      non-luminous or dark cosmical bodies revolving about their\n      respective centres of light and heat, as the attending planets\n      revolve about the common centre of gravity in our own system. And\n      this is especially true of that vast and fathomless star-stratum,\n      called the Milky-way, in which most of these peculiar phenomena\n      occur, with the exception of the variable stars only.\n\n      That stars should vary in their intensity of light by the probable\n      transits of these dark cosmical bodies across their discs, is no\n      matter of wonder or astonishment: on the contrary, it is surprising\n      that these sidereal phenomena do not occur with much greater\n      frequency. This would inevitably be the case if the planes of\n      revolution, in the case of these non-luminous bodies about their\n      central orbs, were coincident with the lines of vision from our own\n      planet--a circumstance by no means improbable from the vastness of\n      the sidereal heavens and the innumerable hosts of stars marching\n      therein. Besides, these periodical variations may be accounted for\n      in part--especially in the case of double stars--from their apparent\n      rather than real change of place in the heavens. For if our\n      sun-system is travelling towards a point in the constellation\n      Hercules at the rate of 194 thousand miles an hour (the rapidity of\n      Arcturus' flight), it is impossible to determine, in the present\n      state of astronomical knowledge, whether the apparent change of\n      place in any star is real or merely optical. But, in the case of\n      double stars, each is travelling (independently of its other\n      motions) about the common centre of gravity obtaining in its own\n      system, and these relative movements may account for the greater or\n      less intensity of light as the two stars, viewed as one, present a\n      greater or less area of luminosity in their united surfaces.\n\n      The assumed revolution of one of these stars about the other--thus\n      destroying all the known analogies of the universe, as exemplified\n      in our own system--may be accounted for in the same way. With\n      stupendous planetary systems revolving about each of these\n      apparently double stars, they must respectively have a revolution,\n      real as well as apparent, about their own centres of gravity--not\n      one and the same centre, but different and far distant centres.\n      Lying in nearly the same line of vision, with planes of movement at\n      right angles with it, they would necessarily present the appearance\n      of one star revolving about the other--an _apparent_ motion only.\n\n      And the writer here ventures an explanation of the phenomena of\n      _temporary_ stars, or those making their appearance in the heavens,\n      flaming up into stars of the first, second and third magnitudes, and\n      then disappearing altogether. The most remarkable of these stars, or\n      _apparent_ stars, was that of Tycho Brahe in 1572, presenting its\n      maximum brilliancy at the very first, but gradually diminishing in\n      size until the end of seventeen months, when it disappeared, without\n      change of place, from the heavens. This temporary star was visible\n      in Cassiopeia, on the verge of the Milky-way, within whose swarm of\n      stellar worlds most of these apparent stars have made their\n      appearance. Tycho Brahe, in seeking to account for this stellar\n      phenomenon, advanced the theory that stars might be \"formed and\n      molded out of cosmical vapor,\" or \"vapory celestial matter,\" as the\n      elder Herschel put it, \"which becomes luminous as it condenses\n      (conglomerates) into fixed stars.\" But any such rapid condensation\n      of \"vapory matter,\" in the light of Laplace's \"nebular theory,\" is\n      manifestly too absurd for scientific recognition. A more\n      satisfactory explanation may be here suggested:--Supposing the\n      apparent relative position of any six or seven stars of the sixth\n      magnitude in the Milky-way, should be so changed by the combined\n      motions of our sun-system and of the stars themselves, as to throw\n      them into one and the same line of vision, but so clustered together\n      as to show their several star-discs as one, we should unquestionably\n      have a star of the first magnitude, which would continue as long as\n      this extraordinary stellar conjunction should last. As one after\n      another of these stars should fall out of line, by reason of the\n      combined motions named, the apparent star would be diminished from\n      the first to the second magnitude, and so on until it reached the\n      sixth magnitude, when it would pass beyond the reach of unaided\n      human vision. But as the star of Tycho Brahe suddenly appeared at\n      its fullest brilliancy, it may be objected that this suggested\n      theory fails to meet the required conditions.\n\n      As 18,000,000, out of the 20,000,000, of telescopic stars lie in the\n      Milky-way, it is not by any means improbable that such a conjunction\n      of stars may occur therein as often at least as once or twice in a\n      century. We certainly see brilliant patches of closely-crowded\n      stars, in great numbers, in this galactic zone, and the fact that\n      these temporary stars almost uniformly appear in that zone renders\n      the suggestion here made quite as rational, in the way of\n      speculation at least, as that of \"vapory celestial matter\" suddenly\n      condensed into a star of the first magnitude, as Sir. William\n      Herschel would have us believe was possible, if not probable.\n\n      Besides, it is a definitely ascertained fact that such clusters of\n      stars, lying in almost the same line of vision, exist in various\n      parts of the heavens, which present to the naked eye the appearance\n      of a star of the fourth or fifth magnitude, and probably would, if\n      more thickly clustered, present that of a star of the first\n      magnitude. But powerful telescopes resolve them into a large number\n      of stars, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth magnitude. One such\n      cluster in Andromeda's girdle has been resolved into not less than\n      fifteen hundred small stars of very low magnitude, and pretty widely\n      scattered in the telescopic field. Alexander Von Humboldt, in\n      speaking of stars that have thus disappeared, says that \"their\n      disappearance may be the result of their motion as much as of any\n      diminution of their photometric processes (whether on their surfaces\n      or in their photospheres), as would render the waves of light too\n      weak too excite the organs of sight.\" And he adds: \"What we no\n      longer see is not necessarily annihilation,\" repeating at the same\n      time the question of Pliny--\"_Stell\u00e6 an obirent nascerenturve?_\"\n\n      But another, and (to our mind) more satisfactory, explanation of\n      these stellar phenomena, may be hazarded in this connection: There\n      are, for instance, in the Milky-way, among the more brilliant\n      clusters of stars, dark granular spots, of greater or less\n      magnitude, in which the most powerful telescopes show no glints or\n      traces of stars. They are among Humboldt's smaller \"fissures or\n      chasms in the heavens,\" in which he asserts that there is a great\n      paucity of stars, or none at all. Now, if one of these thick stellar\n      clusters, which show to the naked eye as a single star, should, by\n      the combined cosmical movements of our sun-system and the stellar\n      group in question, pass into the field of one of these small rents\n      or \"fissures\" in the galactic curtain--that lying in front of the\n      stellar cluster--it would immediately show as a star of possibly the\n      first magnitude, and would continue to shine as a star of that\n      magnitude so long as it remained in the field of the narrow rent or\n      fissure. It would shine out suddenly like a star through a rift in\n      the clouds of a dark night, and disappear as soon as it had\n      traversed, or apparently traversed, the rift in question. This\n      galactic curtain, it should be borne in mind, is made up of\n      18,000,000 of stars, or sun-systems, and not less than 720,000,000\n      dark cosmical bodies revolving about their respective centres of\n      gravity. If the \"nebular theory\" of the universe be true, this is\n      unquestionably the exact condition of things in the Milky-way. Of\n      the more distant stars in this crowded galaxy, we can only catch,\n      even in the telescopic field, mere glints of light as the\n      intervening swarms of stellar and planetary worlds thicken in the\n      foreground and shut out the more distant view. It is only through\n      these rents and fissures in this great galactic curtain that the\n      brighter stellar clusters beyond can ever be seen; and these glints\n      of far distant light, showing dimly through this curtain, may\n      account for the peculiar _milky_ appearance of the galaxy, arising\n      from the loss of chromatic power in the full beams themselves. It\n      was undoubtedly through one of these rents in the galactic curtain\n      that the condensed starry cluster of Tycho Brahe suddenly made its\n      appearance in the outer fringes of the Milky-way, and remained\n      visible for a period of seventeen months.","title":"Life: Its True Genesis","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":78992}