LIFE: 
ITS NATURE, ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, 
AND THE 
PSYCHICAL RELATED.TO THE PHYSICAL. 
BY 
SALEM WILDER. 
BOSTON: 
Press oe Rockwell and Churchill, 39 Arch Street. 
188 6. Copyright, 1886, 
SALEM WILDER. 
Press of Rockwell and Churchill, Boston. PREFACE. 
The writer is impressed with the idea that much more 
might be properly written concerning the Nature of Life 
and the duties which must accompany living. He does not 
expect to add much which is new; but the thoughts here 
recorded have remained after an extended reading of emi- 
nent authors who have written upon like subjects. 
Moral questions receive special attention, and are dis- 
cussed from a common-sense point of view; but a striking 
coincidence is to be noted in the fact that those nations which 
have done most to enlighten the world through biological, 
psychological and physiological investigations have been 
professedly Christian. 
The sceptical as well as the believing have a right to 
know from what stand-point the writer urges his views ; and 
both may ask why he speculates concerning matters beyond 
the comprehension of the human intellect. 
The belief of an author cannot alter the significance of 
a single fact, nor can the disbelief of any other man 
affect the position of actual truth; yet our peculiar views 
upon moral and religious subjects do color our reason- 
ings, even when dealing with matters not directly moral or 
religious. 
Many passages have been wrought into the text which PREFACE. 
others might have allowed to appear as notes. Certain 
parts of the work consist of fugitive thoughts written 
at various times during the past ten years, and in some 
instances these thoughts are imperfectly interwoven, and 
there will be found many digressions from the main line 
of the argument. 
Certain imperfectly understood teachings of nature have 
been perverted by a class of eminent men, and some one 
should restate these teachings from a different point of 
view. The writer has endeavored not to state as fact what 
does not rest upon good authority; but in writing what 
follows he assumes a serious responsibility. In the border 
lands of theory and speculation the lines of truth are not 
always clearly defined. To mislead is easy, and to mislead 
in important lines of thought may do harm; yet men must 
bear the responsibility of their honest convictions. 
If the following pages shall incline readers to think and 
seriously inquire " What is truth ? ” the chief desire and ex- 
pectation of the author will be realized. 
s. w. 
Boston, February, 1886. CONTENTS 
CHAPTER I. 
The Mystery of Life. Opposite Doctrines Concerning Life.—Dr. L. Beale. 
Herbert Spencer’s Definition of Life.—Dr. Papillon.—Nature and 
Life. Life in Lower Orders of Animals. Plant Life. Mimicry. 
Limbs of Reptiles. Infallible Sign of Death. Circulation in Trees. 
Nature will Assert Herself. Hybrids 1 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
PAGE 
CHAPTER 11. 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
Similarities in Living Creatures. —lntelligence in Bees. Reason in Dogs. 
Gift of Language. Men and Apes. Energy from Combustion. 
Evidence of Purpose in Creation. Secondary Causes. Carnivoi’ous 
Animals. Birds of Prey. Dreams of Philanthropists. Natural 
Increase of Life. Human Parasites.— Natural Death a Benevolent 
Reality. —Uncertainty of Life 29 
CHAPTER 111. 
WHENCE IS LIFE ? 
Zeno’s Theory. Stoics. Kinetic Theory of Gases. Luminiferous Ether. 
Divine Revelation. Duke of Argyll’s Statement. Are All Natural 
Bodies Equally Living >— If a Man Die, Shall He Live Again ? Proto- 
plasm. Bioplasm. First Appearance of Life. Life and Organiza- 
tion. Herbert Spencer’s Statement. —Prof. Huxley and the Duke of 
Argyll. Dr. Haeckel. Monism. Spiritualistic and Materialistic Phi- VI 
CONTENTS. 
losophy. Dualistic Philosophy. Extracts from Leading Thinkers. 
Did Matter Exist Eternally ? Self-Existent Intelligence. Which is 
First, Mind or Matter ? Simple Elements of Matter. Spontaneous 
Generation. Germ Theory of Life 50 
PAGE 
CHAPTER IV. 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
Grant Allen v. Sir Charles Lyell. Evolutionary Theories. Prof. E. S. 
Morse. —Virchow. —Fossil Human Skulls. —Value of Any Hypothesis. 
Dogmatic Statements.—Two Classes of Evolutionists. Dr. Hseckel 
on the “ Origin of Life.” Du Bois Reymond. Lamarck’s Theory. 
Man’s Real Place in Nature 87 
CHAPTER V. 
MAN IN HIS COMPOUND NATURE. 
Mind in Men and Animals Compared. Mr. Wallace on Man. Man-like 
Apes.—Birthplace of Man. Has Man Lost a Hairy Covering? 
Desires for Existence Hereafter. Does Nature Always Act in Uni- 
form Ways ? Ideas of God and Immortality. Hume’s Testimony. 
Huxley’s “ Man’s Place in Nature.” Variations Among Animals.— 
Agassiz’s Idea of Creation. The Theory of Encasement. Spermato- 
zoid Theory. Leibnitz. Monads. Grief of the Ape Mother on 
Loss of Her Young. —Alfred E. Brehm. “ The Ways of Monkeys.” 
Scientific Scepticism 113 
CHAPTER VI. 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
Design and Intelligence. Scientific Materialism. Great First Cause. 
Development as Applied to Planets.—Vestiges of the Creation. —Exist- 
ence of an Almighty and Benevolent Intelligence. Creative Theory. 
Nebular Hypothesis. Buddhist Religion. Plato’s Kosmos. 
Monism. Robinet. Henslow. Crystallization. Living Beings. 
Animal and Vegetable Life 140 CONTENTS. 
PAGE 
CHAPTER VII. 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
Constancy of Species. Agassiz. Lamarck’s Theory. Dr. Hitchcock. 
Hugh Miller. Oldest Fossil Human Skulls.—Development of Neck 
of Giraffe. —Primeval Man.—Resemblance of all Animated Forms.— 
Anthropomorphic Conceptions. —Physiologists. Evolution. The 
“ Law of Biogeny.”— Opinions of Von Baer.— Embryology. —Virchow 
at Munich. Antiquity of Man. Omniscience.—Reason . . . 162 
CHAPTER VIII. 
DOES LIFE INHERE IN MATTER? 
Leibnitz and his Monads. Opinions of Needham and Buffon. Leo. H. 
Grindon’s Opinions. Crystallization. Vital Energy. Whence did 
Life Come ? Germs of Life. Pasteur and Tyndall. Disease-Germs. 
Invisible Principle of Life. Life in Sealed Vessels. Original 
Atoms. Rudolf Schmid.— Owen and Hitchcock.— Life Generated in 
Sealed Vessels. Monera. Haeckel’s Opinion. Various Kinds of 
Protoplasm. Various kinds of Ova.—lndividual Difference . . 190 
CHAPTER IX. 
HISTORY OF DISCUSSIONS. 
Writings of Aristotle. Dr. Francisco Redi. H. C. Bastian’s Theory. 
Do Diseases Originate Themselves?—Dr. Carpenter’s Views. Pas- 
teur’s Experiments. Vaccination.—Black Death, or Plague.— 
Shultze and Schwann. Potential and Hypothetical Germs. Tyn- 
dall’s Experiments. Death Without Decay. Epidemics. Bacteria 
in Disease. Contagium and Ferment.—Duke of Argyll . . . 217 
CHAPTER X. 
INCREASING SIZE OF THE BRAIN. 
Vertebrate Life in America. Tertiary Mammals. Size of Female Brains 
in London, Paris, and Berlin.—Intellectual Women. Dr. Dunglison’s 
Statement. Bounds Set Up by Nature. Proportion of Male and CONTENTS. 
Female Births.— Bars to Upward Intellectual Progress.— Necessity for 
Large Brains. Bain’s Theory. Brains of Noted Men. Higher 
Classes Running out. Nature’s Demands.—Greeks v. Englishmen. 
Early Races and Moderns. Hopes for the Future .... 235 
PAGE 
CHAPTER XI. 
NECESSITY OF SOME KIND OF BELIEF. 
Decline of Religious Belief in Europe. Belief in Immortality.—Effect 
of Loss of Belief. Poorer Classes in Italy. Effect of Atheistic 
Teachings. Belief of Buddhists.—Religious Sentiments a Part of 
Man’s Nature. Dangers Attending Loss of Belief.—What is the 
Perfect Moral Standard ? Upon what must it be Based ? Teachings 
of Jesus Christ.—Kant’s Theories of Belief.—Descent of Man from 
Lower Animals. When does Moral Responsibility Commence? 
Conscience as a Guide. Uncertain Moral Standards.— Herbert Spen- 
cer’s Ideas. Precepts of Jesus Christ the Very Highest.—Did He 
Inherit His High Moral Sense ? Former Beliefs 253 
CHAPTER XII. 
BELIEF IN GOD. 
Religion and Religious Theories Confounded. Religious Sceptics. Does 
God Reveal Himself ? Is One who is Compelled to Believe Morally 
Responsible ? Speeches of Pasteur and Dumas. —Life the Gift of the 
Creator. Existence of a Soul Separate from the Body. Manifesta- 
tions of Mind. Apparent Loss of Intelligence. Distinct Individuali- 
ties 274 
CHAPTER XIII. 
MATERIAL SUBSTANCES AND IMMATERIAL ESSENCES. 
Distinguishing Qualities in Man. Immaterial Essences. What may be 
Unthinkable ? Unthinkable Things. Personal Identity. —Person- 
ality Indivisible.—Dr. Reid. Hume’s Ideas.—Etherized Matter.— 
Molecular Action of the Brain. Thought, How Produced, and What 
Is It? Unconscious Part of Our Natures. Voluntary Acts. Facts 
of Consciousness. Mind and Soul Appear to be Spiritual.—Abstract CONTENTS. 
Realities.—Existence of Space.—lnvisible Power Which Underlies 
Sound. Memory, What Is It? Bain’s Theory of Cell-Growths. 
Gray Matter of the Brain. Velocity of Sensations. Different Quali- 
ties of Brains and Bodies. Performance of Moral Duties. Sense 
and Scent of Dogs. Are Odors Material ? Moral Responsibility De- 
pendent upon Moral Freedom. Phrenological Examinations. Moral 
and Immoral Men Compared. —Doctrine of Reprobation.—Lecky’s 
Statement. Absurd Doctrines Taught 288 
PAGE 
CHAPTER XIV. 
CONCLUDING SPECULATIONS. 
Animal ami Spiritual Natures. —J. S. Mill’s Ideas. Origin of the Sense 
of Right and Wrong. —Was the Creation of Man a Benevolent Act ? 
Is Man Morally Free ? Belief of Pagan and Infidel Philosophers in 
Regard to a Future Life. Consciousness of Moral Freedom. Moral 
Necessity. David Hume’s Ideas Concerning Moral Necessity. Con- 
sciousness of Guilt. —ls the Execution of a Moral Law Ever Sus- 
pended ? Propitiating Unseen Powers. Forgiveness. Scientific 
Basis of Morals.—Overruling Power and Infinite Intelligence. Mys- 
terious Providences. Benevolence of the Omnipotent Power.—Higher 
Intelligences. —Planetary Intelligences. Letter of Lord Byron.— 
Dr. Raymond’s Comments.—Diiferent Kinds of Courage. Appear- 
ance of the Truth from Different Points of View. —Views of Different 
Religious Denominations. What are Genuine Truths ? Scientific 
Truths. Actual Truth. Our Unconscious Natures Modify Our Views 
of Truth. What We Certainly Know.—Belief in Miracles.—Reli- 
gious Feelings a Part of Our Natures. Simplicity of the Truth.— 
Concluding Statement 312 LIFE. 
CHAPTER I. 
LIFE, WHAT IS IT? 
In treating a subject concerning which so little is posi- 
tively known the writer proposes to present a few significant 
facts and considerations. 
Let us inquire concerning some of the general character- 
istics of that incomprehensible and invisible element or mani- 
festation which we call life. 
Life in its essence is a mystery ; but the earth teems with 
numberless varieties of living creatures, and the phenomena 
of life are so common that we look upon them as part of the 
course of nature. We are not inclined to inquire concern- 
ing life’s origin and extent except in meditative moments, or 
when impelled to serious thought by the vicinage of death. 
Then we are often disposed to inquire whence? whither? 
But when we attempt to push our inquiries into the nature of 
life we may read over the portals of its temple, "Walk softly 
here,” for the ground on which we tread is under thickest 
mystery. 
Why do we say of one that he is alive, and of another 
that he is dead? What is life? and also its opposite, 
death ? 2 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
For present purposes I assume that life is a manifestation 
of the vital energy or principle which preserves health and 
strength in living beings. 
But in one sense this assumption does not bring us a just 
conception of the proper answer. I however assume that a 
vital energy or principle exists, though well aware that biolo- 
gists are in dispute upon this very point. 
Dr. H. C. Bastian (p. 56, "Beginnings of Life ”) says : 
" Two fundamentally opposite doctrines have been main- 
tained again and again as to the nature of life, under one or 
the other of which all the views ever promulgated on this 
subject may be ranged. According to the one school, life is 
to be regarded as the principle or cause of organization; 
and, according to the other, life is the product or effect of 
organization.” 
H. C. Bastian and others regard life as the effect of or- 
ganization. 
Hunter, Huxley, and many other eminent physiologists 
regard life as the cause rather than the consequence of or- 
ganization. 
If life is merely the result of organization, then men and 
animals are simply organized machines brought together by 
and under the complete control of the mechanical forces of 
nature. 
Chemists have labored to produce living matter, but so far 
have utterly failed in these endeavors. Organic matter has 
been analyzed, and its chemical constituents, carbon, oxygen, 
nitrogen, sulphur, etc., are well known. But when chemists 
combine these elements in the same proportions no breath 
comes,, no throbbing heart, no blood circulation; in fact, 
not the slightest trace of what we distinguish by the name of 
life. WHAT IS LIFE? 
3 
It should be borne in mind that living protoplasm has 
not been and cannot be analyzed. A chemist can say that 
dead protoplasm is compounded of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, 
sulphur, etc. ; but, when he attempts to analyze living proto- 
plasm, death takes place, and it is only dead protoplasm which 
he analyzes. What escapes in the passage from life to death 
cannot be recognized by chemistry, and probably it has no 
chemical quality. 
By using poisons which would destroy all animal life 
chemists may produce certain substances like those produced 
in the animal system at normal temperature ; or, by using a 
degree of heat utterly destructive to animal life, something 
similar has been produced. But in animals these are pro- 
duced with moderate temperature, and without poisons. 
So radically different are the actions of chemicals in the 
laboratory and the chemical actions in living beings which 
produce like results. Yet some have asserted that the pro- 
duction of urea by chemists is an indication that life in ani- 
mal organisms is the result of chemical action or chemical 
combinations. 
Dr. Lionel Beale, the distinguished physiologist and mi- 
croscopist, writing on this point, says (" Protoplasm, or 
Matter of Life,” p. 270), "All the force, all the heat, all 
the motion, in the non-living universe is incompetent to de- 
velop a living monad; and this the physicists know. In 
their view of the construction of living beings they ignore 
the fact of the existence of an already existing organism ; but 
this existence is absolute. They ingeniously invest attendant 
circumstances and external conditions in the garments of 
causes, and persuade the public that these are all in all. 
They then ignore, or deny, the inheritance of life, which is 
all in all, and without which all matter, all force, all possible 4 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
attendant circumstances and external agencies are as 
nothing.” 
Huxley admits that carbonic acid, water, and ammonia 
cannot combine to produce protoplasm, or the matter of life, 
unless the principle of life presides over the operation. Even 
Hseckel, the monistic naturalist, admits that life cannot be 
produced by chemistry. 
However, there is chemical action in the animal system, 
and the work of waste and repair of the animal tissues con- 
stantly goes on. But no chemist has ever been able to pro- 
duce the simplest animal organism, much less intelligence, 
the distinguishing trait of all higher forms of animal life. 
Chemists may analyze and combine as they will, but some- 
thing is still wanting. The germ of life must be implanted 
before the living active machine can be set in motion. 
We confess that from the teachings of science we have no 
knowledge of life separate from matter; for all manifesta- 
tions of life we have ever seen, whether animal or vegetable, 
have been connected with matter. But that is by no means 
proof that life cannot exist separate from matter, or that 
the vital principle is not something different from any mate- 
rial substance, and resident in matter, but not of it, and 
placed there by the eternal and life-giving intelligence. 
Science gives us no positive light in regard to the origin 
of intelligence, though theories are abundant enough. Here, 
as in regard to the origin of life, we may "walk softly,” for 
more is unknown than is known. 
Yet I have no sympathy with those, on the one hand, who 
tell us it is irreverent to pry into the secrets of nature, for 
nature does not reveal her secrets; nor do I sympathize 
with those metaphysicians who tell us that we have no right 
to study what cannot be comprehended by our reason. The WHAT IS LIFE? 
5 
one would shut from us all matters of faith in the unseen; 
and the other would prevent us from investigating whatever 
might tend to make us distrust authority in spiritual things. 
The Duke of Argyll has, in substance, said, "When men 
tell me that I must not search for truth in a certain direction 
the fair inference is that they fear I may discover valuable 
truth hidden there.” 
When we try to describe life in the abstract we cannot do 
it with any degree of fulness or clearness. 
Herbert Spencer defines life to be " The continuous 
adjustment of internal relations to external relations.” 
His definition has been much praised ; but it does not seem 
to convey a full and complete meaning, for life seems to 
comprise more than a "continuous adjustment” alone. The 
life principle appears to be the cause of this " continuous 
adjustment,” for, if the life principle does not precede, 
this " continuous adjustment ” never takes place. This 
adjustment seems to be the product or consequence of the 
life principle. With death this "continuous adjustment” 
ceases. In fact the ceasing of this "continuous adjust- 
ment” is what we call death. 
Grindon says that Spencer’s definition is not that of life 
itself, but it merely describes certain "phenomena of life.” "A 
definite and clear definition of life itself is yet to be given.” 
The difficulty in defining the word " life ” arises from the 
different conceptions of what life really is. One conception 
may be called the metaphysical, and another the physiologi- 
cal. Spencer’s definition is chiefly physiological; but it 
seems to me that the metaphysical view which arises from 
our own consciousness should be considered as important as 
the physiological. These differences of opinion doubtless 
arise from different points of observation. 6 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
Dr. Letourneau (in his Biology, p. 34) says: " The 
definition of H. Spencer, ' The continual agreement between 
interior and exterior relations ’ has the fault of being too 
abstract, and of soaring so high above facts that it ceases to 
recall them.” "It would be better to descend nearer to the 
earth, and to limit ourselves to giving a short summary of 
the principal vital facts which have been observed.” "Doubt- 
less life depends upon a twofold movement of decomposition 
and renovation, simultaneous and continuous; but this 
movement produces itself in the midst of substances having 
a physical state, and most frequently a morphological state, 
quite peculiar to them. Finally, this movement brings into 
play diverse functions in relation with this morphological 
state of the living tissues, habitually composed of cells and 
fibres endowed with special properties,” 
Spencer’s definition is not comprehensive enough nor 
clear enough to suit Dr. Letourneau, and he gives the fol- 
lowing definition of life : " Life is a twofold movement of 
simultaneous and continual composition and decomposition, 
in the midst of plasmatic substances, or of figurate ana- 
tomical elements, which, under the influence of this indwell- 
ing movement, perform their functions in conformity to 
their structure.” 
Some assert that the tendency of present scientific thought 
is towards considering life to be the result of organization. 
Nevertheless I must question the rightfulness of this ten- 
dency. An authority no less than Herbert Spencer, in answer 
to the question, "Does life produce organization, or does 
organization produce life?” states, "that function is from 
beginning to end the determining cause of structure.” 
As above intimated there is a great lack of clearness in 
the various meanings which different writers attach to the WHAT IS LIFE? 
7 
word "life.” Some regard life as an entity, or something 
like what the human soul is supposed to be, a something 
which can exist separate from matter. This is the meta- 
physical view. Others regard life as a " condition,” or a 
result of the union of a force, or something called vitality, 
with matter. In this connection the statement is often 
repeated, "Force cannot exist without matter, nor matter 
without force.” 
Thus, in regard to the question whether life is the cause or 
the result of organization, if life can exist separate from 
matter, surely life may, and doubtless should, precede organ- 
ization. But, if life is "a condition,” or simply a process of 
action, and cannot exist unless connected with matter, then 
organization may precede or be coexistent with the life. 
Lawrence says (Lectures, p. 65), " Life presupposes or- 
ganization, as the movements of a watch presuppose the 
wheels, levers, and other mechanism of the instrument.” 
This statement is the physiological view, and regards life as 
simply a " condition ” dependent upon organization. But 
life exists in absolutely structureless matter, and if there is 
no structure, where is the organization? Can there be 
organization without organs ? Haeckel says there are " or- 
ganisms without organs,” strange as this may sound. 
On the other hand, many believe that there can be no 
animal organization unless life precedes or is antecedent to 
the organization. Most of this difference of opinion arises 
(as above intimated) from the different ideas entertained as 
to what life in the abstract really is. Those who take the 
physiological view use the word life in a sense nearly equiva- 
lent to the verb "to live.” 
While we know little of the abstract principle of life we 
know that a certain amount of violence will deprive an ani- 8 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
mal of life. We also know that if the blood is drawn off 
the life goes out with it. We also know that when the 
life once leaves a plant or an animal it never returns. 
We cannot tell the exact seat of the life. The ancient 
Jews were commanded not to eat the blood, " for the blood 
is the life.” Strange as it may seem, the blood has life in 
itself, and its white corpuscles are believed to be living or- 
ganisms ; yet we cannot say that the blood is the life itself, 
any more than we can say that the heart is the life. Life 
permeates all the vital organs, and in fact is in every part 
of a living body. We cannot definitely locate it in any par- 
ticular part of the physical system. But, if there is no par- 
ticular seat of life, where does death begin? 
Dr. Papillon says, in his work, "Nature and Life” (pp. 
309 and 310), "If life is everywhere ; and if, consequently, 
death occurs everywhere, in all the elements of the system, 
what must be thought of that point in the spinal marrow 
which a famous physiologist styled the vital knot, and in 
which he professed to lodge the principle of life itself? The 
point which Flourens regarded as the vital knot is situated 
nearly at the middle of the prolonged spinal cord that is, 
the middle of that portion of the nerve-substance which con- 
nects the brain with the spinal marrow. This region, in fact, 
has a fine and dangerous excitability. A prick, or the penetra- 
tion of a needle into it, is enough to cause the instant death of 
any animal whatever. It is the very means used in physiologi- 
cal laboratories to destroy life swiftly and surely in dogs. That 
susceptibility is explained in the most natural way. This 
spot is the starting-point of the nerves that go to the lungs. 
The moment that the slightest injury is produced in it there 
follows a check on the movements of respiration, and ensuing 
death. This vital knot of Flourens enjoys no sort of special 9 
SEAT OF LIFE. 
prerogative. Life is not more concentrated nor more essential 
in it than elsewhere ; it simply coincides with the initial point 
of the nerves animating one of the organs indispensable to 
vitality, the organ of sanguification ; and in living organisms 
any alteration of the nerves controlling a function brings a 
serious risk as to its complete performance. There is, there- 
fore, no such thing as a vital knot, a central fire of life, in 
animals. They are collections of an infinity of infinitely 
small living creatures, and each one of these microscopic 
living points is its own life-centre, for itself. Each, on its 
own account, grows, produces heat, and displays those char- 
acteristic activities which depend upon its structure. Each 
one, by virtue of a preestablished harmony, meets all the 
rest in the ways that they require, just as each lives on 
its own account, so on its account each dies; and the 
proof that this is so is found in the fact that certain parts 
taken from a dead body can be transferred to a living one 
without suffering any interruption in their physiological ac- 
tivity, and in the fact that many organs which seem to be 
dead can be excited anew, awakened out of their torpor, and 
animated to extremely remarkable vital manifestations.” 
Though life cannot be located specially in any particular 
part of the body, and thus we cannot say that it resides in 
any particular organ of the body, or that it especially resides 
in the blood, yet, as a part of the blood (the white corpus- 
cles are by some anatomists supposed to be living organ- 
isms), it might naturally be supposed (as the fact really is) 
that there should be a live blood and a dead blood, just as 
really as there may be a live egg and a dead egg. Live 
blood has heat, and is generally in a fluid state. Dead blood 
is generally comparatively solid, though it often remains in 
a fluid state in the veins for some time after death. The 10 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
fluidity of the blood has been shown generally to depend 
on its life, and not on its heat or circulation. If you draw 
off blood and keep it at the same temperature as the living 
blood, and also keep it in circulation by artificial means, it 
will still become partially solid, the same as if allowed to 
become cool. 
Without blood there can be no life in any air-breathing 
animal; and yet we are no nearer to the answer to our 
question, "What is Life?” when we say it resides in the 
blood or in the heart, or in protoplasm, than we should be if 
asked what kind of men live in Boston, and we should 
answer that they live in brick or in stone houses. If the 
blood is life’s house, that does not inform us what the 
life is. 
It is wonderful how the principle of life can keep the 
human system so many years at a temperature just right 
for rapid decomposition; and yet this principle counteracts 
all this tendency to decay, keeps the system from putrefac- 
tion, and causes the whole work of increasing physical 
strength to go on till the man attains his highest vigor. How 
life is prolonged, or by what abstract principle vital action is 
carried on, has not been revealed to mortals. 
In closing his address at Nashville, August, 1877, Prof. 
O. C. Marsh uses the following language : "In this long 
history of ancient life I have said nothing of what life itself 
is ; and for the best of reasons: because I know nothing. 
Here, at present, our ignorance is dense ; and yet we need not 
despair. Light, heat, electricity and magnetism, chemical 
affinity and motion, are now considered different forms of 
the same force; and the opinion is rapidly gaining ground 
that life, or vital force, is only another phase of the same 
power. Possibly the great mystery of life may thus be PRINCIPLE OE LIFE. 
11 
solved; but, whether it be or not, a true faith in science 
knows no limit to its search for truth.” 
Men have attempted to tell how life originated, and they 
talk of its ultimate principle, "protoplasm, or the physical 
basis of animal and vegetable life.” But though protoplasm 
is called the ultimate, were not its original elements dead 
matter until they received new qualities from the principle 
of life ? These questions have been discussed by profound 
students, but no voice has yet clearly answered the question, 
" What is Life ? ” 
Some assert that all life, whether animal or vegetable, is 
of the same nature ; and that plants as well as animals have 
nerve centres. Though this theory of nerve centres may 
not receive general assent, there are things which seem to 
indicate that some plants have organs of sensation. 
For instance, the sensitive plant will close itself on the 
approach of an intruder, just as a rabbit will burrow on the 
approach of an enemy. If you touch a certain part of the 
blossom of the common barberry with a pin, the stamens 
will close tightly around the pin, as if to hold it a prisoner. 
There may be, however, reason to believe that these actions 
of plants are caused by electricity or a like force. 
Bbeckel represents the mimosa when it folds its leaves as 
acting from the same forces in nature and the same principles 
as men do when they think ; but I venture the opinion that there 
is considerable difference in the quality of such action. 
However, there appears to be something like instinct in 
plants and trees. Plant a tree that needs moisture near a 
stream of water, and it will send out its roots in the direc- 
tion of the water. On the contrary, plant a tree that 
needs a dry soil in a similar position, and its roots will run 
away from the water, and towards a dry soil. 12 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
Life in the lower order of animals has a great similarity 
to that in the vegetable kingdom. In fact the animal and 
vegetable kingdoms seem to ran together, or into each other. 
There is an order of life which cannot with certainty be 
classed as either animal or vegetable, but which seems to 
partake of the nature of both. There is a considerable 
number of living organisms which may be either animal or 
vegetable, and I am not sure that some do not in certain 
respects partake of the nature of both. Some plants have 
motions like those of animals. Certain kinds of algae, when 
the cases or bulbs which hold their seeds burst, scatter the 
seeds, and these seeds sometimes travel around an hour or 
two with a rapid motion through the water like living 
animals. But they afterwards settle upon a rock, and grow 
into a plant like the parent stock. These seeds are called 
zoospores. 
Huxley (p. 160, "Science and Culture”) says: "At 
the present day, innumerable plants and free plant cells are 
known to pass the whole or part of their lives in an actively 
locomotive condition, in no wise distinguishable from that of 
one of the simpler animals, and while in this condition their 
movements are, to all appearance, as spontaneous as much 
the product of volition as those of such animals.” 
In regard to the supposition that some plants may have 
nervous centres and systems, Huxley says (p. 164, " Sci- 
ence and Culture”), of what is called Yenus’ fly-trap: 
" Touch one of them with the end of a fine human hair, and 
the lobes of the leaf instantly close together, in virtue of an 
act of contraction of part of their substance, just as the body 
of a snail contracts into its shell when one of its ' horns ’ is 
irritated.” " The reflex action of the snail is the result of the 
presence of a nervous system in the animal.” NERVOUS SYSTEMS. 
13 
It does not necessarily follow because contractility of 
muscle in animals shows a nervous system to exist in the 
animal that a nervous system also exists in plants when 
they have similar motions ; but Huxley says : " It suggests 
a suspicion of their identity which needs careful testing.” 
He further says (p. 165) : "The question whether plants 
are provided with a nervous system or not', thus acquires a 
new aspect, and presents the histologist with a problem 
of extreme difficulty, which must be attacked from a new 
point of view and by the aid of methods which have yet 
to be invented.” 
" Thus it must be admitted that plants may be contractile 
and locomotive; that, while locomotive, their movements 
may have as much appearance of spontaneity as those of the 
lowest animals ; and that many exhibit actions comparable 
to those which are brought about by the agency of a nervous 
system in animals.” 
He also mentions a case that occurred not long since 
which shows how extremely difficult it is to decide as to what 
kingdom certain active particles belong. Prof. Tyndall 
made an infusion of hay, and soon there appeared in the 
infusion what seemed to be living animals. He showed 
some of this infusion to Huxley, and asked him whether he 
thought the moving creatures were animal or vegetable. 
After examination, as they undoubtedly came from vegetable 
matter, Huxley decided that they were vegetable and not 
animal. Tyndall did not believe in Huxley’s decision, and 
said he would as soon " think that a sheep was a plant.” 
Huxley afterwards spent much time in making careful exami- 
nations, and finally states that he cannot "certainly say 
whether the creature is an animal or a plant.” But he still 
believes it to be a plant. 14 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
He also quotes the eminent botanist, De Bary, when de- 
scribing the zoospores which cause the potato-rot, and the 
way they make their lodgements on the plants as they swim 
about: " Foreign bodies are carefully avoided, and the whole 
movement has a deceptive likeness to voluntary changes of 
place which are observed in microscopic animals.” 
Bear in mind that these moving zoospores are vegetable, 
and not animal; and that they swim in the moisture on 
potato-leaves as a fish would swim in a mill-pond; and 
after a while a spear-like protuberance comes out from the 
side of the zoospore and penetrates the potato-plant. Then 
they multiply so rapidly that in a day or so millions are 
grown on a single plant, and, being very minute, are 
carried by the winds whatever way they blow, and thus in a 
short time they spread over miles of territory, carrying dis- 
ease, or perhaps death, to the potato-plants. 
You can feed some minute animals (not one five-hundredth 
of an inch long) as well as you can feed cattle. Huxley states 
that you may put finely ground carmine into water in which 
certain kinds of animalcules live, and they will feed upon it, 
and when filled will become so tinged with carmine that it can 
readily be seen in their bodies. Their manner of feeding 
proves that such are animals and not vegetables. 
The singular nutrimental peculiarity of all living animals 
is, that their nutriment is taken from without, and assimilated, 
and what they do not need to retain is generally thrown out 
through excretory ducts. The taking of food is like this 
even with the little infusoria, which are so low down in the 
animal scale that they have no mouths, but take food in on all 
sides. This food then goes towards their centres, and from the 
centre there is another action towards the outside, which car- 
ries out of the animal what it does not need for its nutrition. 15 
LOWER FORMS OE LIEE. 
Strange manifestations of life are found in those animals 
which look so much like vegetables that it is difficult to dis- 
tinguish the one from the other. 
Mr. Wallace, as quoted by Mivart (p. 45, "Gen. of 
Species ”), says of certain butterflies found in Sumatra 
which look like leaves of trees : "These butterflies frequent 
dry forests, and fly very swiftly. They were seen to settle 
on a flower or a green leaf, but were many times lost sight 
of in a bush or tree of dead leaves. On such occasions 
they were generally searched for in vain, for, while gazing 
intently at the very spot where one had disappeared, it would 
often suddenly dart out, and again vanish twenty or fifty 
yards farther on. On one or two occasions the insect was 
detected reposing, and it could then be seen how completely 
it assimilates itself to the surrounding leaves. It sits on a 
nearly upright twig, the wings fitting closely back to back, 
concealing the antennas and head, which are drawn up be- 
tween their bases. The little tails of the hind wing touch 
the branch, and form a perfect stalk to the leaf, which is 
supported in its place by the claws of the middle pair of 
feet, which are slender and inconspicuous. The irregular 
outline of the wings gives exactly the perspective effect of a 
shrivelled leaf. We thus have size, color, form, markings, 
and habits all combining together to produce a disguise 
which may be said to be absolutely perfect; and the protec- 
tion which it affords is sufficiently indicated by the abundance 
ot the individuals that possess it." 
"Some insects, called bamboo and walking-stick insects, 
bave a most remarkable resemblance to pieces of bamboo, to 
twigs and branches.” 
Of these latter insects Mr. Wallace says ; " Some ol these 
are a foot long, and as thick as one’s finger, and their whole 16 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
coloring, form, rugosity, and the arrangement of the head, 
legs, and antennas, are such as to render them absolutely 
identical in appearance with dry sticks. They hang loosely 
about shrubs in the forest, and have the extraordinary habit 
of stretching out their legs unsymmetrically, so as to render 
the deception more complete.” 
Thus, speaking of one of the walking-stick insects, Mr. 
Wallace says : " One of these creatures, obtained by myself in 
Borneo (Ceroxylus laceratus), was covered over with folia- 
ceous excrescences of a clear olive-green color, so as exactly 
to resemble a stick grown over by a creeping moss or junger- 
mannia. The dyak who brought it to me assured me it 
was grown over with moss, although alive, and it was only 
after a most minute examination that I could convince my- 
self it was not so.” 
Again, of the leaf-butterfly, he says : "We come to a still 
more extraordinary part of the imitation, for we find rep- 
resentations of leaves in every stage of decay, variously 
blotched and mildewed, and pierced with holes, and in many 
cases irregularly covered with powdery black dots, gathered 
into patches and spots, so closely resembling the various 
kinds of minute fungi that grow on dead leaves that it is 
impossible to avoid thinking at first sight that the butterflies 
themselves have been attacked by real fungi.” 
There are certain grasshoppers which look almost exactly 
like leaves. Instances of a similar nature might be multi- 
plied, showing in what wonderful ways nature exhibits the 
varieties of life. Probably the fact that animals or insects 
mentioned above look so much like vegetables may be the 
means of preserving their lives from natural enemies; 
and hence be the indirect means of keeping the species in 
existence. 17 
STRANGE FORMS OF LIFE. 
H. L. Fairchild, in "Popular Science Monthly” for 
September, 1882, writing of the means of defence, of which 
breaking apart may be an example, says : " Oddest of all 
defensive methods is that of snapping off the tail. The 
blind-worm, or the slow-worm, is a little, snake-like lizard, 
common to the Old World. When alarmed, it contracts its 
muscles in such a manner and degree as to break its tail off 
at a considerable distance from the end. But how can this 
aid it? The detached tail then dances about very lively, 
holding the attention of the offender, while the lizard him- 
self slinks away. For a considerable time the tail retains its 
capability of twisting and jumping every time it is struck. 
The lizard will then grow another tail, so as to be prepared 
for another adventure. There are other lizards which have 
similar power, though in a less degree. The American 
glass-snake, so called, is one.” 
The limbs of certain reptiles, and of some other animals 
grow like vegetable shoots. If a serpent loses his tail he can 
have another by growth. If a lobster loses a claw, or a 
lizard a leg, another will grow to replace it. If a snail loses 
his head even, another will grow on in course of two or three 
months. Cut some animals into two or more pieces and 
each part will grow into a separate individual. Take the 
polype for instance, cut that into several pieces, and each 
piece will grow into an individual organism like the original 
one. If you cut off the part which may be called its tail 
from that piece will grow all the other parts of the body, till 
it completes itself, mouth and all, like the original animal. 
Huxley states (p. 85, "Origin of Species ”) : "And so 
far does this go that some experimentalists have carefully 
examined the lower orders of animals, among them the 
Abbe Spallanzani, who made a number of experiments upon 18 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
snails and salamanders, and have found that they might 
mutilate them to an incredible extent; that you might cut 
off the jaw, or the greater part of the head, or the leg, or the 
tail, and repeat the experiment several times, perhaps, cut- 
ting off the same member again and again ; and yet each of 
those types would be reproduced according to the primitive 
type ; nature making no mistake, never putting on a fresh 
kind of leg, or head, or tail, but always tending to repeat, and 
to return to the primitive type.” 
But if you cut off a man’s finger one will not grow to 
replace that. Life in the lizard’s leg, the lobster’s claw, 
and in the serpent’s tail is like that pertaining to the very 
lowest types of animals. This also resembles life in the 
vegetables, in the skin of the higher animals, and in the 
nails or hoofs of certain animals. 
Herbert Spencer remarks : " The highest animals repair 
themselves to a very small extent, mammals and birds only 
in the healing of wounds. The power of reproducing 
lost parts is the greatest where the organization is the 
lowest.” 
The lowest animals are like certain plants which can be 
divided again and again, and each separate part will grow into 
a plant like the original one. Plough through a horseradish 
bed, and the pieces that are carried away by the plough and 
left in other places will grow into perfect roots. Often this 
is the cause of considerable trouble to the gardener. 
A strange thing connected with animal organisms is the 
appearance of life excited by a galvanic battery after 
death. 
The length of time that these appearances of life will 
continue is generally greatest in the lower animals. 
Take a common frog, cut it in two, and hours afterwards, STRANGE PHENOMENA. 
19 
on the application of the battery to the backbone, the part 
will jump as if alive. 
Dr. Bastian says (p. 27, " Beginnings of Life ”) : 
" Durino- winter the muscles of certain fishes and certain 
O 
reptiles have been known to contract for a week after death; 
though in birds and mammals this property of the voluntary 
muscles disappears after a few hours.” From the researches 
of Nysten upon the bodies of decapitated criminals, it 
appears that in man, as in the lower animals, a certain order 
is observed amongst the different muscles of the body in the 
loss of this vital property. Contractions from electrical 
stimuli ceased in the left ventricle of the heart after forty- 
five minutes; in the muscles of the extremities, after seven 
hours; and last of all, in the right auricle of the heart, 
which on this account had been previously spoken of by 
Galen as ultimum moriens. In one instance Nysten found 
that this portion of the human heart could be made to contract 
sixteen and a half hours after the death of the individual.” 
When a man is 'decapitated we consider him dead. But 
query : lias all life actually left the right auricle of the heart, 
so long as galvanism will cause it to contract ? A considerable 
portion of a man’s body may be dead before the brain dies ; 
why also may not one part of the vital organs even be 
dead before all the heart dies ? 
Dr. Beale says (p. 261) : " The life of a man or the 
life of an animal is something very different from what is 
termed the ' life ’ of a white blood-corpuscle, or of a mucus, 
or pus corpuscle; inasmuch as many hundreds of white 
blood-corpuscles, or elemental units of the tissues, might 
die in the man, without the life of the man being affected. 
Moreover, the man himself might perish, and some of his 
living particles remain alive.” 20 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
A man is not always dead when all outward signs of life 
have disappeared. Instances are not uncommon where per- 
sons are resuscitated after they are supposed to be dead, as 
in cases of persons apparently drowned. An acquaintance 
of mine once apparently died of a contagious disease, and 
preparations for burial were being made. The man told me 
that he was conscious of what was going on, but that he 
could not exhibit any signs of life. After a while one of the 
attendants thought he detected signs of life, and the prepara- 
tions were postponed, and the man lived. In a case like this, 
decomposition only would seem to be certain evidence that 
the man was really dead. 
In "Nature and Life” (pp. 325 and 326), Dr. Pa- 
pillon says : " A zealous philanthropist quite lately gave a 
sum for a prize of twenty thousand francs to the discoverer 
of an infallible sign of death. Doubtless the intention is 
excellent, but we are safe henceforward in regarding the sex- 
ton’s work without alarm; the signs already known are clear 
enough to prevent any mistake, and to make the fatal risk 
of premature burial impossible.” 
"We must point out in the first place the immediate signs 
of death. The first and most decisive is the absolute stop- 
page of the heart’s pulsations, noted for a duration of at least 
five minutes, not by the touch, but by the ear. ' Death is 
certain,’ says the reporter of the Commission named in 
1848 by the Academy of Sciences to award the prize of 
competition as to the signs of true death, ' when positive ces- 
sation of pulsation of the heart in the subject has been ascer- 
tained, which is immediately followed, if it has not been 
preceded, by cessation of respiration and of the functions of 
sensation and motion.’ The remote signs equally deserve 
attention. Of these, three are recognized : corpse-like rigid- SIGNS OF DEATH. 
21 
ity, resistance to the action of galvanic currents, and putre- 
faction. As we have already seen, rigidity does not begin 
till several hours after death ; while general and complete dis- 
appearance of muscular contractility, under the stimulus of 
currents, and last of all, putrefaction, are only manifest at a 
still later period. These remote signs, particularly the last, 
have this advantage, that they may be ascertained by those 
unacquainted with medicine ; and it is very well to pay some 
attention to them in countries where physicians are not 
charged with the verification of the disease, but they are of 
no importance wherever there are doctors to examine the 
heart with instruments, and to decide promptly and surely 
upon the death from the complete stoppage of pulsation in 
that organ.” 
The question, what death really consists of, is a very inter- 
esting and profound one. 
Prof. Joseph Be Conte, in his treatise on the " Correla- 
tion of the Vital with the Chemical Forces,” says (p. 200) : 
"As organic matter is so much matter taken from the com- 
mon fund of the matter of earth and air, embodied for a 
brief space to be again by death and decomposition returned 
to that common fund, so also it would seem that the organic 
forces of the living bodies of plants and animals may be re- 
garded as so much force drawn from the common fund of 
physical and chemical forces, to be again refunded by death 
and decomposition, —yes, by decomposition ! We can under- 
stand this. But death ! Can we detect anything returned by 
simple death ? What is the nature of the difference between 
the living organism and the dead organism? We can detect 
none, physical or chemical. All the physical and chemical 
forces withdrawn from the common fund of nature, and em- 
bodied in the living organism, seem to be still embodied in 22 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
the dead, until, little by little, it is returned by decomposition. 
Yet the difference is immense, it is inconceivably great. 
What is the nature of this difference, expressed in the formula 
of science? What is it that is gone, and whither is it gone? 
There is something here which science cannot yet understand. 
Yet it is just this loss which takes place in death and before 
decomposition, which is in the highest sense the vital force.” 
But equally great is the change from death to life. At 
one moment matter is inert, or dead, and in another it is 
alive, without the least chemical change that we can detect. 
This change is instantaneous. The line believed to exist 
between the living and the dead can be crossed instantly ; 
but how wide is the gulf, and how immeasurably deep the 
chasm ! Well may we ask in wonder, What is this force or 
energy which makes this wondrous transformation ? 
Life has many varied forms and strange shapes, especially 
when it is hard to tell whether it is animal or vegetable. 
Some animals are planted like vegetables. Others, like the 
clam, live and grow without seeming to travel; though I 
believe as a matter of fact, the clam does change its dwell- 
ing-place. 
There are also other striking similarities between animal 
and vegetable life. 
Trees grow by secretion, as well as animals. In fact, the 
white corpuscles in the blood of a man (which are about 
one twenty-five hundredth of an inch in diameter) are almost 
identical in chemical constituents with the corpuscles in the sap 
of certain trees. These white corpuscles in the blood of a 
healthy man are about one to three hundred of the red, and 
are somewhat larger than the red corpuscles. In some dis- 
eased persons, however, the white become equal in number 
to the red corpuscles* (Bastian, p. 225.) SIMILARITY OF ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE LIFE. 
23 
Thus in such diseased persons the blood approaches in its 
chemical composition the sap in the trees. 
Girdle a tree so that the sap cannot go up under the bark, 
and the tree will die, as an animal will die if you stop the 
circulation of its blood. The blood of the tree circulates 
under the bark, and the little tubes which carry the sap to its 
leaves correspond to the veins of a man. The leaves of a 
tree are its lungs, and they also take in some of its 
nutriment; they inhale carbonic acid gas, which man 
exhales. 
There is a difference, however, in the way a tree shows its 
death. It does not fall down at once, like an animal; but the 
first sign of death is the withering of its lungs, or leaves, or 
their fall. Neither is the decay of a tree accompanied by 
that offensive odor which accompanies decaying animal mat- 
ter ; though in some decaying vegetables, as the cabbage and 
the potato, the odors are anything but sweet. 
However,when you attempt to distinguish the lowest orders 
of animals from vegetables, it is very important that the 
odors of decay should be duly noted; for if they are not, it 
may be impossible to determine whether they are animal or 
vegetable. The sponge, for instance, on the rocks and shells 
where it grew, was for a long time supposed to be a vege- 
table ; but when odors from decay and from burning were 
noticed they were so distinctly animal that the sponge is 
now conceded to be animal, and not a vegetable. 
There is a similarity of construction between animals and 
vegetables. The tree has a bark for a covering, and the 
animal, a skin. Cut the bark of a tree, and the sap, or the 
tree’s blood, will flow. So also, cut the skin of an animal, 
and some of the vital fluid, or blood, will flow. But cut the 
limb off a tree, and it may not injure its vigor. It may 24 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
make it even more vigorous. Certain trees and vegetables 
thrive all the better for priming. 
Not so with the higher order of animals. By cutting off 
their limbs a definite loss of power occurs. 
Cut a tree down, and it may sprout and become a vigorous 
tree again. But of man, Job said, "As the waters fail from 
the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up, so man lieth 
down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they 
shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” 
Men and animals decay with age, and so also plants and 
trees. There is a turning-point in the lives of trees and 
animals. 
Perhaps, after a vigorous life of from two hundred to five 
hundred years, the highest vigor of a tree may be reached, 
and then, like an old man, it may be on the down-hill of 
life. There are also health and disease in both plants and 
animals. Both need food. The tree must have earth and 
moisture, or it will die of hunger and thirst, like an animal 
deprived of nourishment. 
How similar the origin of fowls and the oak ! The changes 
of the chicken in the shell, like the germ in the acorn, can 
be observed during its early development, and until it bursts 
its shell. 
The chick has nutriment in its crop from the yolk of the 
egg to sustain it until it has strength to go in search of other 
food. Quite similar is the germ of the acorn before it bursts 
its shell. The acorn itself furnishes food to nourish it until 
its roots can go down into the earth in search of other nour- 
ishment. How similar this to the mammalian mother, who 
carefully nurses her young till it can take other food! 
There is also in each of these cases an expenditure of en- 
ergy, and this energy must be supplied by combustion from SIMILARITIES. 
25 
within until it can get nourishment from without. Thus, as 
we might suppose, the egg during the season of incubation 
grows lighter in weight. So likewise the acorn sprouting 
loses much of its solid substance in feeding the shoot. Like- 
wise the caterpillar, when it comes forth a butterfly from its 
chrysalistic state, is much lighter than when, as a caterpillar, 
it entered the chrysalis. In some cases nine-tenths its weight 
is lost during development. The energy required for de- 
velopment in this case must be supplied from combustion 
within. So, also, all energy of development must be sup- 
plied from within when it cannot be had from without; for 
Nature will not be cheated out of her just dues ; and she 
will supply no energy, no development, except it be paid 
for in a legal way. No human government can more 
strongly demand " legal tender ” than Nature does. 
How strangely, also,will Nature assert herself, even in the 
youngest creatures ! Place the eggs of a duck under a hen, 
and let her hatch them out. Why do the little ducks so soon 
take to the water, where the hen, their foster-mother, does 
not dare to go ? Who taught the little duck that its foot 
was shaped just right for swimming ? Why does it not heed 
the example and instructions of the only mother it has known, 
and keep away from water ? Why is the whole nature con- 
tained in the egg from which it comes forth? "From a bad 
egg comes a bad crow,” is a familiar quotation. Who but 
the great Author of all life can fully explain all the laws of 
heredity or descent? 
Trees and animals have a similarity of structural organi- 
zation. The animal has a bony skeleton, to give it form and 
strength. Even the tortoise has a skeleton ; but that is on 
the outside instead ,of inside. So the tree has in every 
year’s growth a part that is stronger and harder than the 26 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
other part; and it has also cells, through which moisture and 
other nutriment circulate. Trees breathe through their leaves, 
and also gather some nourishment through them ; and light 
and heat are as necessary to trees as they are to animals. If 
you keep a tree constantly stripped of its leaves, it will die, 
as surely as a man will if his lungs are so filled or so im- 
paired that he cannot get oxygen to keep up the vital fires. 
With man life means action. We speak, and justly too, 
of a man of no energy as a lifeless character; for he does 
not show qualities that we have a right to look for in a being 
endowed with life. Even a lazy man will speak slightingly 
of another lazy man. 
Again, observe the similarity of physical structure in man 
and birds and quadrupeds: how the fore legs of quadru- 
peds and the wings of birds correspond to the arms of 
men. 
Yet in some parts of anatomical structure there is a wide 
difference between birds and men, especially in the position 
and shape of their lungs, and in the construction of their 
bones. Bones of birds are more hollow, and thus are made 
as light as possible for the strength required. 
Their breathing-apparatus is more generally distributed 
throughout the body than in men or quadrupeds. A consid- 
erable portion of the bird’s lungs is near the outside, and 
directly under the wings; hence a pressure under the 
wings of a bird on each side of the body will stop its breath, 
and death will generally ensue within one minute. 
But, unlike men, birds can breathe through the hollows in 
their bones. 
H. L. Fairchild, in "Popular Science Monthly” for April, 
1882, says ; " Except in water-birds, the hollow bones also 
contain air, and by their connection with the lungs respiration BIRDS AND QUADRUPEDS. 
27 
can be continued through an opening in the arm or thigh 
bone, although the windpipe may be tied.” 
I will now mention some curious phenomena connected 
with the development of life through a mixture of races : 
One of the strangest characteristics of living things appears 
in what are called hybrids. These hybrids may be either 
animal or vegetable. They are the progeny of what appear 
to be two different species of plants or animals. I say appear 
to be different species, for I do not believe that radically dif- 
ferent species can interbreed. Hybrids do not interbreed 
between themselves. 
The offspring of the ass and the mare is called a mule. 
The horse will also interbreed with the zebra and the quagga. 
But horses, asses, quaggas, and zebras belong to different 
branches of the same family. Progeny from the inter- 
mixture of either of these are infertile among or between 
themselves, though they sometimes interbreed with the 
original stock. 
The most singular trait of the cross between the horse and 
the ass is the difference between the mule and the hinny ; the 
mule being the offspring of a jackass and a mare, and the 
hinny the offspring of a stallion and a she-ass. Now one 
would naturally suppose that the offspring of a she-ass and a 
stallion, and a he-ass and a mare, would be alike ; but they 
are not; the mule has the head, ears, and tail of the ass, 
and the body of a horse, but brays like an ass ; while the 
hinny has the head, ears, and tail of a horse, and the body 
of an ass, but neighs like a horse ; so strangely different in 
hybrids are the qualities transmitted by the male and female 
parents. 
The dog and the fox will interbreed, but their offspring are 
infertile with each other, though they may interbreed with 28 
WHAT IS LITE ? 
the parent stocks. The wolf and the dog, being of a nearer 
relationship, will interbreed, and their offspring are fertile, 
and rear a race of wolf-dogs. 
This ability to propagate a race easily, in a great measure 
indicates the nearness of the relationship between races which 
seem to be different from each other. SIMILARITIES IN ANIMALS. 
29 
CHAPTER 11. 
SIMILARITIES IN LIVING CREATURES. 
I wish now to call attention to certain similarities, both 
physiological and instinctive, which pertain to nearly every 
class of animals, and also to the harmonious and unvarying 
action of the laws of nature in connection with all animated 
existences. 
General rules apply to many characteristics of nearly 
every variety of living beings. The brain, stomach, heart, 
liver, how very similar their operations in different 
animals ! But the heart and stomach in different orders of 
animals are very differently constructed. 
Hunter, in his classification of animals, places,— first, 
" mammalia and birds ; having a heart with four cavities. 
Second, reptilia and amphibia; having a heart with three 
cavities. Third, fishes and mollusks (pars) ; having a heart 
with two cavities. Fourth, articulated animals; having a 
heart with one cavity. Fifth, medusas; having the heart 
and stomach identical.” 
Notwithstanding these radical differences of construction 
the circulation of the vital fluids and the action of the vital 
organs have a wonderful similarity. 
How strangely alike are men and animals in their affec- 
tions and in their anger ! What strange variations of form 
and habits, and yet what similarity of tastes ! Brutes appear 
to have their seasons of hilarity, depression, and even 
sorrow. How piteous the moans of a dog that has lost his 30 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
master; how joyous at meeting an old acquaintance; how 
like, in some respects, a playful child and a playful kitten ! 
Each will cry from a sense of loneliness, and each likes to 
be caressed. 
How like in their industry are active human beings and 
bees ! Each improves the time in active labor. Each has a 
disposition to accumulate against the time of need. Bees, 
like men, when they have accumulated property are dis- 
posed to keep and defend it. What a remarkable instinct 
(or shall I call it intelligence?) bees show in the con- 
struction of their comb, the house for their young, and the 
storehouse of their food ! The mathematical proportions of 
these houses are as correct as those in any human habita- 
tion. Their hexagonal shape, and pyramidal bases placed 
as they are, make the strongest possible structure consider- 
ing the amount of material used. 
It has been stated that the bee is so made physically 
that it could not make its comb in any other shape; 
but I do not believe this statement, for I think the 
contrary can be shown. Obstructions have been pur- 
posely placed where bees would like to build their 
comb ; and, to avoid these obstructions, on the one side 
they have built their cells larger externally than at the 
bottom of these cells; but on the other side they made 
the orifices of the cells smaller than the cells were at 
the bottom, and thus built the faces of the comb on a 
regular curve instead of straight, but still kept regular 
mathematical proportions. This seems to show intelligence 
of no mean order. But suppose the previous statement, 
that the bees’ physical construction is such that they can 
build their comb in only one way, were true; then what 
intelligence so constructed the bees themselves that they can BEES 
31 
make their comb only in correct mathematical proportions? 
Did this happen fortuitously ? 
I do not suppose any man ever directed the construction 
of a public edifice, who more thoroughly adapted all its pro- 
portions to secure the proper strength, than do these bees, 
taught by the supreme intelligence, or by nature. Some- 
times they show remarkable intelligence in the construction 
of defensive works to keep out moths that might destroy 
their young, and themselves even, if these moths could get 
access to their homes. It is a pity that human beings are 
not better imitators of the bees in this respect. 
The organization of the bee is a very complex one, with 
a delicately organized nervous system; in fact the very 
anatomy of the bee indicates a high degree of intelligence. 
If man has been evolved, or developed from lower 
animals, as Darwin supposes, we might reasonably expect, 
from the highly complex and intelligent organization of the 
bees, that they would be our near relatives. But Haeckel 
can find no common ancestors without going back through 
thirteen grades to the primitive worms, and rather despond- 
ingly remarks (p. 252, vol. 1, "Evolution of Man”): 
" Unfortunately, we lose by this the relationship which 
might otherwise connect us with termites, ants, bees, and 
other virtuous members of the articulate class. Among 
these insects are many well-known patterns of virtue, which 
the fable-wrriters of old classic times held up as examples for 
men. In the civil and social arrangements of the ants, 
especially, we meet highly developed institutions which we 
may even yet regard as instructive examples. But unfor- 
tunately these highly civilized animals are not related to 
us.” 
Prof. Oscar Schmidt says (p. 28) : " Hours do not 32 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
suffice to describe the structure of the bee. Even externally, 
its body, which possesses so highly complicated a structure, 
promises a rich development of the interior. The mandu- 
catory apparatus can be rendered comprehensible only by 
comparison with the oral organs of the whole insect world. 
The various divisions of the alimentary canal are each pro- 
vided with special glands. The rich psychical life, all the 
actions which imply intelligence, calculation, and perception 
of external situation, are rendered possible by a highly devel- 
oped nervous system, and the marvellously complex sensory 
organs with it, of which the eyes are especially remarkable. 
Independently of the generative organs, consisting of mani- 
fold parts of greater or less importance, the history of the 
multiplication and development of the bee demands a study 
of itself.” 
Thus, from the very complexity of the bee’s structure, we 
might naturally look for the high degree of intelligence which 
bees manifest. 
The higher order of animals seems to possess considerable 
intelligence. The ant (spoken of above) has been com- 
mended for its activity, and the sluggard has been advised 
to imitate it. But when we speak of intelligence in animals 
we are told that they work entirely by instinct. lam not, 
however, willing to admit that instinct accounts for all the 
manifestations of intelligence they exhibit. Ants appear to 
have a kind of language by which they communicate with 
each other, and in such a way as to be perfectly understood. 
Who has not seen signs of intelligence among dogs, and 
to some extent reason ? They also appear to have certain 
sense of right and wrong. 
Some years since, at Bye, N.H., two large dogs went 
together about two miles from their homes, in the night- MORAL SENSE IN ANIMALS. 
33 
time, to where a flock of sheep was kept, and killed several 
of the sheep. They did this more than once; and these 
destroyers could not be detected for a long time, but were at 
last discovered; and the first thing that attracted attention 
and raised suspicion against them was their guilty appear- 
ance on days succeeding their bloody excursions. A watch 
was set, the dogs were detected, and paid the penalty with 
their lives. 
It may be answered that these dogs did not have any 
sense of right or wrong, but that they feared punishment, and 
this made them appear guilty after their wrong-doing. But 
why this fear, when no one saw them kill the sheep ? If we 
suppose they feared that some one saw them, does not this 
very fear imply a species of reason ? 
Instances of a similar nature might be multiplied, many 
of them coming under my personal observation, which show 
that dogs have in their mental make-up much that is akin 
to reason, and (without indorsing the Darwinian theory in 
every respect) I think that their actual relationship to the 
genus homo in their mental characteristics may be nearer 
than some are williim to acknowledge. 
O O 
Agassiz goes beyond this in his book on the classification 
of animals (pp. 96 and 97), and writes as follows : 
" When animals fight with one another, when they asso- 
ciate for a common purpose, when they warn one another in 
danger, when they come to the rescue of one another, when 
they display pain or joy, they manifest impulses of the same 
kind as are considered among the moral attributes of man. 
The range of their passions is even as extensive as that of 
the human mind, and I am at a loss to perceive a difference 
of kind between them, however much they may differ in 
degree, and in the manner in which they are expressed. The 34 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
gradations of the moral faculties among the higher animals 
and man are, moreover, so imperceptible that to deny to the 
first a certain sense of responsibility and consciousness 
would certainly be an exaggeration of the differences which 
distinguish animals and man. There exists, besides, as much 
individuality within their respective capabilities, among 
animals, as among men, as every sportsman, every keeper 
of menageries, and every farmer or shepherd can testify, or 
any one who has large experience with wild, tamed or 
domesticated animals.” 
If dogs had the gift of speech doubtless they would 
exhibit intelligence which would surprise us, for they might 
learn from each other facts of history, and a thousand other 
things of which we now suppose them to be profoundly 
ignorant. 
Look at a human infant! If it was not for knowledge 
transmitted to it through spoken, written, or sign language, 
how high would it be likely to rise in the scale of intelli- 
gence? It is true its brain is large, but that very size of 
brain needs attention; and the child must have culture, else 
bad results will be likely to follow. 
Notwithstanding what has been written to show that 
highly elaborated languages with nearly perfect grammatical 
structure, do not necessarily indicate any particular revela- 
tion of language to man (and while I am willing to admit 
that all languages in their inception may have been very 
simple), yet I am constrained to consider the power of 
speech to be a direct gift to man, as the crowning intelligent 
being on the earth. Moreover, the Creator has given to 
man vocal organs differing greatly from those of all other 
animals ; so that, even if the dog or the horse had as large 
and as active a brain, and were as well constituted mentally MEN AND APES. 
35 
as man, jet they would not be able to articulate any known 
human language. Thus the Creator has not only endowed 
men with large brains but also with suitable physical organs, 
through which their thoughts can be communicated, and thus 
the experience of one may be the guide of the many. 
But though we may be complimentary to the intelligence 
of the higher animals, let us understand that the gulf which 
separates the brute from the human is very wide, deep, and 
in fact impassable, so far as any light from science has 
shown. The development of the highest order of the brute 
creation is upon a radically different basis. Take the 
young of the highest anthropoid races at the time of birth 
and compare it with the human infant. No one species of 
apes is in every respect nearest like the human species. In 
some respects the orang is nearest, and in other respects 
the chimpanzee, but for the purposes of comparison take the 
latter. At the time of birth, the infant chimpanzee looks 
(in some respects) more intelligent than the human infant. 
But as each develops in its natural way a wide divergence 
appears. The upper part of the forehead, which represents 
the reasoning faculties, fills out and becomes strongly devel- 
oped in the human infant as it grows older, while in the 
infant chimpanzee, the forehead, instead of becoming fuller, 
begins to recede, and the shape of its brain seems to indicate 
a tendency towards less rather than more intelligence as its 
body becomes developed. 
So very marked is this divergence between the infant 
chimpanzee and the human child as each grows older that 
it can be accounted for only by admitting that the great 
intelligence which presides over all nature, and over all the 
laws of birth and development, has from the very first fixed 
this radical difference. This filling out of the human fore- 36 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
head before the infant can talk shows that it has inherited 
something through its very constitution which tends towards 
thought and reflection; while the receding forehead of the 
anthropoids as they grow towards maturity show that they 
inherit a constitution tending exactly in an opposite direc- 
tion. This difference will doubtless forever remain. 
M. Quatrefages, in his "Human Species,” says (p. 379) : 
"In drawing comparisons between men and apes, the sphe- 
noidal angle, discovered by M. Yirchow, studied by M. 
Welker, and which, thanks to M. Broca, may be measured 
without making a section of the skull, presents special in- 
terest.” These experiments and measurements show that 
in man the average sphenoidal angle measures, in infancy, 
141 degrees, but in the average adult 134 degrees, showing 
a decrease of seven degrees in the size of this angle, from 
infancy to adult age. 
But, on the contrary, in apes, —take the sajou for instance : 
At birth this angle measures 140 degrees, or one degree less 
than in the human infant; but at mature age it measures 
174 degrees, or an increase of 34 degrees. In the orang, 
at birth this angle measures 155 degrees, and in the adult 
174 degrees, or just the same as the sajou, but showing an 
increase of 19 degrees between infancy and adult life, giving 
an average increase of degrees of this angle in the apes. 
But in the average human this angle decreases 7 degrees 
from infancy to mature age. 
But, notwithstanding human superiority to the speechless 
animals, our domestic animals are entitled to kind and con- 
siderate treatment. Life even in the brutes is a wonderful 
thing. If life is merely a mechanical operation, as some 
suppose, why should a horse flee from a wild beast on 
account of fear ? What other mechanical operation has fear ? 37 
WHENCE LIFE-GIVING POWER? 
Who ever knew a steam-engine to turn out of its course for 
any beast from fear? Still, there are many things about a 
steam-engine that much resemble muscular action of animals. 
o 
The active energies of each are supported by combustion. 
The combustion of a peck of oats in a horse develops power, 
just as really as a peck of coal burned under the boiler of a 
locomotive. But what a difference in the results ! The oats 
are turned not only into muscular and motive power but 
into tissues and nerves that have sensations ; and they also 
furnish food to repair wasted tissues. But the combustion 
of coal under a boiler repairs no wasted tissues, and builds 
up no body that can feel pain, or emotions of fear, joy, or 
sorrow. It takes the vital principle to make combustion 
perform this double duty. 
As the physical system is supported through combustion, 
and largely receives its strength through this, several ques- 
tions naturally arise. 
First, Whence originates life-giving power? Can this 
power be derived from the purely mechanical laws of nature? 
Or is there a force, whether personal or impersonal, behind, 
or antedating the laws of nature, which originated and 
ordained these immutable natural laws, and from which 
comes this life-giving power in accordance with these im- 
mutable laws ? 
The varieties of plants and animals are almost infinite in 
number; and yet all these can be arranged in a few classes, 
and in some respects they are all constructed and developed 
upon one general plan. Every variety of living thing seems 
perfectly formed for the purposes of its existence. How 
does all this happen to be so ? Did all this happen without 
purpose, or without what (for want of a better term) we 
call intelligent direction? 38 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
Notwithstanding all the dust thrown by those who repeat 
the statement that the theory of evolution annihilates the 
idea of design in creation, the fact still remains that some 
power has acted in a manner which we are accustomed to 
call intelligent, and this power lies back of all the phenomena 
of evolution, and the process of evolution is one manifesta- 
tion of the way in which this power has been and is still 
working. If we deny purposive direction in this, we might 
as well assert that Handel’s grand oratorios or Beethoven’s 
sublime symphonies were composed and arranged by throw- 
ing mud-balls at random on a musical staff, and then writing 
the notes where these mud-balls struck. More than 1,900 
years ago, Cicero, in substance, asked what would be thought 
of a man who should assert that a valuable book could be 
written by throwing lettered blocks into the air and allowing 
them to fall at random, with the expectation that they would 
so fall and arrange themselves as to compose a nice poem or 
a logical argument? Nice poems and logical arguments are 
not produced without careful, intelligent thought; nor is it 
likely that as wonderful and complex things occur in nature 
without purposive direction. In nature there is everywhere 
as much harmony, and as real an exhibition of intelligent 
methods, as is seen in the production of great musical com- 
positions or in logical arguments. Everywhere not only 
harmonious arrangements are found but also the nicest 
mathematical proportions, whether we look among plants 
and animals, or to the planetary systems. As much care 
seems to be given to the construction of tiny insects as to the 
balancing of worlds and systems of worlds, which go on their 
ceaseless rounds through the immensity of space, and always 
in perfect order. 
If we doubt that these nicely harmonious arrangements DESIGN IN CREATION. 
39 
were made by an infinitely wise being, and suppose they do 
not indicate the intelligence and power of a creator, by what 
magical power do they happen to exist? Why may we not 
as well suppose that the telescope of Lord Bosse made itself, 
or that it was constructed without intelligent instruction, as 
to suppose that even the eye of a fly made itself, or was con- 
structed by nature without a superintending, creative and 
intelligent power? Why may we not as well suppose that 
the finest coins ever struck olf in a mint simply happened 
to fall in that shape without a die to give them shape or 
form ? 
There can never be an event under the laws of nature 
without a cause, and this cause must of necessity be of a 
nature related to this event, and must be powerful enough to 
produce it; and no effect can be greater than its cause. 
The less (except through outside help) can never produce 
the greater; so, not the smallest insect lives which was not 
caused to exist by a power capable of producing life, and 
also by a power above our comprehension ; for, if we could 
comprehend the full action of this power, we might our- 
selves originate life. Scientific research has not yet demon- 
strated how life originally came into existence on the earth. 
But every man knows it does exist on the earth, and this 
not without a cause, and a cause also that is equal to the 
event, viz., the production of life. 
Those who believe in the mechanical and chemical theory 
of life think they find in nature alone all the power neces- 
sary to evolve life, or to raise inorganic matter to the plane 
of organic, or living matter. Though to my mind it is 
extremely unphilosophical to attempt to account for the 
origin of life without recognizing the existence of an 
almighty, eternal, and intelligent being as the original 40 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
Creator, yet the Creator works so largely and so unerringly 
through secondary causes, or through the laws of nature, to 
such an extent, that in one sense I do not wonder that some 
never look beyond these secondary causes, but recognize 
them as existing eternally, and hence in their minds they 
dispense with any idea of an original great first cause. 
They do not recognize in this cause an acting, thinking, 
eternal intelligence. 
The manifestations of life on the earth furnish us with all 
that we know for a certainty of any life. Vegetable life is 
largely dependent upon one of these secondary causes, viz., 
the sun. Blot out the sun, and all life on the earth would 
cease ; nay, more, the planets would rush into space no one 
knows where, nor to what ruin. The rays of the sun falling 
upon trees and plants contribute to their growth, and in fact 
to a considerable extent feed them. Then plants and 
vegetables furnish food to herbivorous animals, and these in 
O 
turn furnish food to carnivorous animals. But notice this : 
carnivorous animals and birds of prey prefer to feed 
upon plant and grain eating animals. (They like to take 
food one remove from vegetables, but seldom desire to take 
it two removes from vegetables.) Thus, flesh-eating 
animals are not generally accustomed to feed upon other 
exclusively flesh-eating animals. 
A singular and distinguishing trait or characteristic of 
nearly every species of birds of prey is that the female is 
considerably larger and stronger than the male. In almost 
every variety of hawks the spread of the wings of the female 
is from two to four inches greater than that of the male, and 
they are correspondingly stronger. The female eagles weigh, 
on the average, about a pound more than the male eagles, 
and they are in a corresponding degree more powerful. I BIRDS OF PREY. 
41 
have never heard of eagles feeding upon the flesh of other 
flesh-eating birds ; but they rob fish-hawks of fishes which 
they have caught for their own use. Ben. Franklin did not 
like this habit, and was much opposed to putting the eagle 
on our national coat-of-arms, for, said he, "the eagles do not 
get an honest living.” 
However, the eagles are a type of the rapacity, heartless- 
ness, and cruelty of carnivorous animals. They live by the 
seizure and death of others. But this again, in a figure, is a 
type of the subsistence of living creatures in general. 
Nearly all live by the destruction or assimilation of other 
orders ; and some will even eat others of their own species. 
Plants live upon inorganic, and animals upon organic 
nature. It may be said that when big fishes eat little ones 
this is a general type of the subsistence of all animated 
existence. 
The large tree, " monarch of the forest,” overtops and 
stunts all other vegetation within its reach. It must be fed, 
and hence withholds nutriment and sunshine from weaker 
vegetation. So with animals, even to the highest, man. 
The great and strong generally take from the small and 
weak; and there is no reasonable hope that a similar con- 
dition of things will not remain so long as the present 
order of things exists. We dream of the millennium, and 
indulge other fond hopes, and to some extent there may be 
improvement, and Hope says, "there is a good time 
coming.” But the character of human nature will ever 
remain substantially the same. The communist dreams of 
the time when all men will have equal privileges, and all be in 
a certain sense equal; but so long as nature favors one man 
with more intelligence than another, just so long will one be 
superior to another; and as long as one is superior, so long 42 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
will he not only claim a preeminence, but will obtain a 
certain eminence. 
There are, however, some noble exceptions to this general 
rule, especially when the learned instruct the ignorant, the 
morally strong try to lift up and strengthen the morally 
weak, and the physically strong defend the defenceless, and 
the wealthy give of their abundance to comfort the indigent. 
Though a grasping nature inheres in all men, scarcely any 
are totally devoid of sympathy, and in some the spirit of 
kindness is very strongly developed. These show that, after 
all its defects, human nature is not entirely devoid of godlike 
sympathy. 
But we must look facts squarely in the face ; and some of 
these facts are not of such an assuring nature as we might 
desire. 
Philanthropists look forward to the blissful time when 
wars shall cease, and when the knowledge of the laws which 
govern health will be so well understood that there can be 
no wide-spread epidemics, and when the average life will be 
much longer than it now is. This is well as a sublime 
dream ; but what do stern facts indicate? If wars cease, and 
the average of life is greatly lengthened, population will 
wonderfully increase. Exceeding great numbers must be 
fed, and well fed too, or pestilence will stalk abroad, and 
again diminish the number of the living. But if pestilence 
does not come, and food is short, the hungry must and will 
have food, and the rule, get food "honestly if you can, but 
get it,” will be applied. Man is a lighting animal, and will 
always so remain. Those in possession of fertile and pro- 
ductive fields will not give them up without a struggle; 
hence wars will be inevitable. 
When we consider what the present population of this NATURAL INCREASE OF LIFE. 
43 
little globe would have been in the regular course of in- 
crease if none bad lost tbeir lives by accident, wars, or 
pestilence, we see that the present power of food production 
by the earth would not suffice to feed one-tenth of the 
number that would be here. Under favorable circumstances 
races of men increase very rapidly. Had it not been for 
untimely deaths from famine, pestilence, accidents, or wars, 
there would not be standing-room on the whole earth for 
the immense number of human beings which would now be 
in existence. 
From one single pair, providing each couple should pro- 
duce four children, within thirty generations, or in less 
than one thousand years,—the living descendants would 
number near three thousand millions, or more than twice 
the present number of all the human inhabitants of this 
globe. 
Doubtless food production can be increased greatly beyond 
our present needs ; but let the present population be ‘in- 
creased one hundred-fold, as it would be within a thousand 
years if the dreams of certain philanthropists could be real- 
ized, and then the bosom of mother Earth could not furnish 
the needed supply of food. There is such a thing as a 
balance of forces in nature, and a limit to the supplies for 
both vegetable and animal life. Certain birds and beasts of 
prey, which men are anxious to destroy, are doubtless very 
useful in the economy of nature. Take owls, for instance. 
What good do they do ? They often destroy the farmer’s 
chickens, and this is placed to their debit; but, if we credit 
them with the great numbers of mice and other injurious 
vermin which they destroy, we shall find a large amount to 
be placed to their credit. It is doubtful if any living 
creature has been made in vain, although some may question 44 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
what good can come from the existence of certain insects, 
the mosquito for instance, or certain venomous serpents. 
We talk of the survival of the fittest. Doubtless, in a 
general way there is truth in the doctrine of such survival; 
but we might also say the survival of the most fortunate; 
for how often do the strongest succumb to accident, or un- 
foreseen calamities ? A large proportion of humanity is 
carried along by force of circumstances, as wood is carried 
by currents of water, or as straws are carried by the winds. 
It is true, that some men seem superior to circumstances, 
and appear to make circumstances serve their purposes, and 
weave the web of life’s actions according to their desires ; 
and some woi’k themselves into other currents ; but it is 
doubtful if even the most fortunate reach anywhere near the 
goal of their ambition. There are always other worlds to 
conquer, or, if we cannot find them, —like Alexander, we 
weep because we cannot find others to conquer. 
But it is asked, Why not make laws to restrain the grasp- 
ing propensities of strong men, and so protect the weak that 
all may stand financially upon a level ? 
When men can stop the natural ebbing and flowing of the 
tides, then, and not till then, will they be able to turn back 
the tide of the tendencies of human nature. Suppose, for 
instance, laws were made for an equal distribution of prop- 
erty, and carried into effect, how long would it be before the 
distribution would be as unequal as it is now ? On account 
of the improvidence of many who never before had any 
spare money, and the freeness with which they would spend 
it, doubtless there would be given to business an impetus 
such as it never before received, and immense fortunes would 
in a very short time be acquired by shrewd financial operators. 
Probably within twenty years there would be men with LIVING UPON OTHERS. 
45 
greater fortunes than any man now possesses. But why not 
make laws which will render such an accumulation impossible ? 
When we make laws which prevent men from honest accu- 
mulation we shall take away the greatest stimulus to 
activity, and the remedy would be much worse than the 
disease. The lazy and the improvident will alvrays be found 
in human society, and it is questionable how far it is the 
duty of the industrious and frugal to help the indolent, 
especially when such assistance tends to encourage indolence 
and shiftlessness. 
Look at the immense numbers which society has to main- 
tain on account of habits of inebriation. 
By what law of right do the intemperate and slothful live 
upon the temperate and frugal ? 
It is said that whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also 
reap ; and, if one will sow to rum, what can he expect to reap 
but drunkenness and the untold evils which it brings ? 
Through habits of sloth, intemperance and sensuality, drunk- 
ards make themselves, in a measure, unfit to take proper care 
of themselves, and then, like carnivorous animals, they prey 
upon the benevolent community which supports them ; but 
with this difference, viz., that carnivorous animals generally 
feed upon animals of other species, while the lazy, slothful 
and improvident live upon their own species. Some men are 
especially like the carnivorous animals to this extent, viz., 
that they consider everything which comes within reach of 
their claws to be lawful plunder. 
Others may be likened to children who cannot understand, 
when they want a certain thing, why they should not have 
it, although they have not the shadow of a right to its pos- 
session. 
But this is not all in regard to the intemperate and 46 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
criminal classes : they fasten upon the succeeding generation 
a lot of lazy, diseased, incompetent, and too often vicious 
descendants; and such live upon the industry of their own 
species, and become parasites upon the substance of their 
own race. • 
From such views of nature and of life, the statement has 
been confidently made that the Creator cannot be an infinitely 
wise and benevolent being if He designed that the world of 
organic life should be as we now find it. The statement is 
also made, that if animals were created for the purpose of 
being destroyed to furnish food to other animals, this shows 
a cruel, instead of a benevolent, design. But this is by no 
means a logical conclusion. Even if one animal loses its 
life to give food to another, it by no means necessarily 
follows that there was no kindness in the creation of the 
animal thus destroyed ; for we must remember that death, in 
some way, is a necessity, or the production of life must be 
stopped, else, as stated above, no sufficient amount of food 
could be produced by the earth to feed the animals which 
would be brought into existence. But why could not the 
Creator have so formed His creatures that they could exist 
without food ? We may ask a dozen other similar questions ; 
but, before we can convict the Creator of cruelty in creat- 
ing animals, we must consider another fact which relates 
to the balance of existing happiness and unhappiness. If 
there is much more happiness than unhappiness enjoyed 
by animals as a whole, was not their creation a benevolent 
act? It is evident that most animals generally live without 
fear, and most, if not all, appear to enjoy themselves well, 
and the short fear that may exist previous to being destroyed 
cannot be an equivalent or offset to their comparatively long 
time of enjoyment. ENJOYMENTS AND SUFFERINGS. 
47 
Take even insects which are devoured by the birds, who 
knows that in their brief lives they may not enjoy all that 
their natures are capable of? There must be suitable food 
for plants, animals, and men, or these cannot continue to 
exist. Until the objector can show that the animal creation 
in general does not enjoy more than it suffers, in consequence 
of its existence, then a balance of benevolence instead of 
malevolence must be credited to the creating or originating 
power. 
But I assume, even in the case of men, who are gifted with 
the power of reason, and also of reflection upon both their 
sorrows and their joys, that in general they enjoy more than 
they suffer. A great proportion of the sufferings of men, 
however, is caused by unnecessary violations of the laws of 
nature, though many of these violations may be committed 
ignorantly. The laws of nature however do not suspend 
their regular operations to favor one who has ignorantly 
transgressed them. And the very fact that the laws of 
nature are invariable in their operations is a blessing; for, if 
they were not so, how could we with certainty calculate 
anything in regard to the results of our own or others’ acts ? 
Even with men natural death is a benevolent reality; 
for, if no one ever died a natural death, murders would be 
the rule, since, as above stated, the earth would be so crowded 
that food enough to feed the human race could not be pro- 
duced, and hunger would drive to madness, and madness to 
murder, to get those out of the way who were consuming the 
food which others needed. 
But again, in regard to the assertion that an infinitely 
wise and benevolent power never could have originated the 
present order of nature, those making these assertions refer 
especially to the sufferings of men; but even in the case of 48 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
men, if, as a general rule, they did not enjoy more than they 
suffer, suicides would be more common. Instead of suicides 
being one in five hundred, more or less according to the 
condition of the people, they would be the rule rather than 
the rare exception. It may be said, in answer, that fear of 
death or fear of an unknown future existence may so restrain 
men that many of the unhappy who otherwise might com- 
mit suicide now refrain from doing so. 
Here arise two considerations : First, a man must have a 
conviction that there may be a future life, in which he may 
be less happy than here, otherwise such a fear would not 
restrain him. Second, why this fear, if there is not some 
ground for apprehension on this point? Those who do not 
believe in a creative power do not believe in a conscious 
future life; so if the atheist thinks he has more unhappiness 
than happiness in consequence of his existence, why does he 
not put an end to his existence? The very fact that he does 
not argues one of two things : first, he either has some fears 
in regard to a future existence, or he is conscious that he 
enjoys more than he suffers in consequence of his existence. 
But some who claim to be very wise, and to see farther into 
natural causes than others, assert that blind, unconscious 
causes could produce all that we see of life; and, further, 
they seem to think that they have relieved an intelligent 
designer of a great stigma by attempting to show that an 
intelligent being could not possibly have formed nature as it 
is. Such may be wise, but I cannot comprehend such wis- 
dom. 
I now call attention to another characteristic of life, viz., 
its uncertainty. 
With ordinary machines, like watches, or mill-machinery, 
we can calculate very nearly how long they will last. Liv- UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE. 
49 
ing organisms, however, have a recuperative or repairing 
power in case of injuries (unless they are of a fatal char- 
acter), while mere mill-machinery has within itself no re- 
cuperative power; and in this respect the living machine is 
far above the merely mechanical; yet in the plant bearing 
the fairest flowers there may be an unseen worm gnawing 
its vitals. " Thou must decay !” is stamped on all living 
things. 
While the presence of life lifts inorganic matter into 
organic, and thence up through plant into animal life, the 
departure of life sends this same matter back to its elements ; 
and thus ever the ceaseless round goes on from death to life 
and from life to death again. 
The sunlight acting on the elements causes the grass to 
grow, and the grass feeds the cattle, producing milk and 
flesh, and these in turn become food for men and other 
animals. Then again these higher organisms return to the 
elements, constantly going from lowest to highest, and back 
again to lower forms of matter. 
How like are these changes to the emotions and feelings 
of living, loving, and intelligent creatures ! Byron wrote, 
“Man! Thou pendulum between a smile and a tear.” 
So hearts exuberant and full of joy to-day may be sad or 
bursting with anguish to-morrow. Nothing on earth is 
stationary. 50 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
CHAPTEE 111. 
WHENCE IS LIFE? 
Problems which arise in connection with the origin of 
life and conscious existence are numerous and interesting. 
For more than two thousand years human intellects have 
wrestled with these questions, and, as history is said to 
repeat itself, so the theories advocated and taught by Zeno 
two thousand two hundred years ago find advocates to-day 
among highly intelligent men. Inasmuch as some prom- 
inent writers are now disposed to ridicule and treat as 
chimerical, ideas, which, for all that they have ever 
shown to the contrary, may be founded in truth, I will, 
before proceeding to the direct consideration of questions 
concerning the origin of life, give a short historical sketch of 
discussions, and also inquire whether all that is now declared 
to be scientific has just claims to that proud distinction. 
Zeno contended that the vital force filled all things, and 
was ever ready to burst into animated existence whenever 
favorable conditions existed, and that this vital force con- 
trolled all things, but that it was an invisible principle, and 
not a personal God. Thus to worship this was simply an 
absurdity, which ignorant or illiterate men might indulge in 
without special harm. 
So certain moderns contend that everything, even to our 
conscious existence, springs from eternal and unalterable 
laws of nature. While many are silent on the question of 
belief in the existence of a personal Deity, others, like the WHENCE IS LIFE ? 
51 
Stoics, declare that matter is eternal, and that it has in itself 
the power of originating life, and thus that the idea of a self- 
existent and omniscient Creator is a delusion, a mere figment 
of the imagination. 
The Stoics contended that life in animals and men is only 
a part of this everywhere-present vital flame, which simply 
bursts into a new development in the individual; and, as 
matter goes its ceaseless round, through inorganic to organic, 
and from organic back again, so life is simply a phenomenon, 
an emanation, followed by absorption through death, and 
thus this vital flame or emanation goes back and forth 
eternally from death to life and from life to death again. 
We of the present age consider ourselves wonderfully 
favored with knowledge of a great number of accurately 
known facts ; but in this matter of life and its origin, if we 
throw aside the reasonings of Plato, who taught before the 
Stoics existed, and who acknowledged a Supreme intelligence 
or intelligences, and build our knowledge, as Zeno did, 
simply upon known facts, and pursue our inductive reason- 
ings only from known facts, we may well come to the con- 
clusion, from the paucity of such facts to build upon, that in 
regard to the origin of our existence we can never know the 
truth with any considerable degree of certainty. 
Also in many other matters we can never know the 
absolute truth, and thus well may we ask, as Pilate did, 
" What is truth ? ” It is very certain that those who are 
most confident that they hold the truth in its genuineness 
and purity as the only absolute truth are quite as likely to 
be in error as those who modestly and sincerely ask, " What 
is truth ? ” 
So the decidedly positive writers of the present time, 
when speculating in regard to life’s origin, are searching in WHAT IS LIFE ? 
52 
regions where no positive demonstrations exist in our present 
state of knowledge; and they may well moderate their pre- 
tension to positive knowledge. They will be wise if they 
admit that men who are not scientific, but who base their 
opinions concerning these points on simple statements of 
what they regard as a direct revelation from God, may really 
be as philosophical as the positive writers who reject all ideas 
of revelation, and attempt to reason not from known facts 
but from premises which have their bases in simple assump- 
tions. 
It is quite important that we be able to separate the 
known from the unknown, and ascertain what is fact, in 
opposition to what is assumed. 
Examples are not wanting of men confessedly of high 
scientific attainments who have adopted theories to account 
for physical phenomena, and reasoned from premises of 
which neither they nor any other men ever had experi- 
mental knowledge. Sometimes such theories have been 
generally accepted; but subsequent experiments or obser- 
vations have shown conclusively that these assumed prem- 
ises could not be true, and not till then have these theories 
been abandoned. Take, for instance, the kinetic theory of 
the gases (which may or may not be true), and also that 
of a luminiferous ether, with which space is (very properly) 
supposed to be filled; how scientific men have theorized 
about them, when in neither case have these philosophers 
ever shown that anything actually demonstrable is known 
of the supposed facts on which these theories have been built. 
Who ever saw the ultimate atoms of gases going in 
straight lines with inconceivable velocities, and either dodg- 
ing or striking against each other when they happen to 
meet? Who knows whether these supposed atoms are WHENCE IS LIFE? 
53 
elastic or non-elastic ? Able scientists disagree here; yet 
men supporting such theories, while the question whether 
the atoms are elastic or non-elastic, or, in fact, whether they 
actually exist under the conditions supposed, is uncertain, 
have been called scientific. But when some unscientific 
speculator suggests that facts which no human philosophy 
has ever explained may possibly be explained by divine 
revelation, he is (by these philosophers) set down as a 
victim of credulity, and no philosopher. Of course no man 
who bases his belief on things demonstrably untrue can be 
a philosopher. Let it also be fully understood that no in- 
telligent man has a moral right to put confidence in any 
theory or doctrine which contradicts well-ascertained and 
demonstrable facts. 
Without attempting to decide whether or not this belief 
in divine revelation is justified by fact from a scientific 
point of view, I do assert that it may be as philosophical 
to resort to revelation for an explanation of some things 
which have never been otherwise explained as it is for a 
scientist to assume that the theory of the kinetic action of 
the gases is true, or that an all-pervading ether must exist, 
simply because he cannot otherwise explain certain phenom- 
ena, when, in fact, neither has any certain knowledge as to 
whether his theories are based on facts or not. I say this: 
that consistency may be considered in argument; and I also 
ask, how it happens that one speculator who reasons from 
supposed facts is a philosopher, and another, reasoning 
from premises also uncertain, is no philosopher? 
It matters not, so far as real philosophy is concerned, 
whether these supposed revelations are found in the Koran, 
or Book of Mormon, or in the Christian or Jewish Scriptures, 
the believer in either (until the contrary can be shown) 54 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
has just as good a claim to be considered a philosopher 
as the scientist who founds his theory of the origin of life 
on suppositions which he cannot prove to be facts ; e.g. 
"spontaneous generation.” 
Thus the men who take their opinions from and build 
theories of life’s origin on statements made by men eighteen 
hundred, or even three thousand, years ago, who claimed to 
get their facts through direct revelation from the original 
Creator of all things, are as justly entitled to respectful con- 
sideration as Dr. Hgeckel in his "Natural History of the 
Creation; ” for he draws his conclusions in many cases as 
largely from the mysterious and the unknown as do the 
most credulous supporters of the supernatural or miraculous 
origin of life. Granted that neither knows for a certainty 
what the truth is in regard to questions at issue : it may be 
well to remind these over-positive writers, who ridicule the 
idea of direct revelation, that they do not hold all the wis- 
dom or intelligence of this world, and that truths may pos- 
sibly exist which they do not comprehend, and hence 
refuse to acknowledge. 
I am well aware that to certain men this language will 
be offensive; but no man has a moral right to throw aside 
supposed revelation from the Supreme Being as worthless 
without first fairly and intelligently considering whether 
such supposed revelation is really what it purports to be. 
It is quite popular with some to scout the idea that the 
statements of the Bible in regard to the origin of life are of 
any value, and point to the utter unreliability of the Bible 
when quoted on any ordinary scientific question. Granted 
that the Bible is of little value in regard to the common 
scientific questions (since it is not a scientific book) : that 
by no means shows that in matters beyond the domain of WHENCE IS LIFE? 
55 
positive sciences its utterances may not be of great value. 
Of course there can be no need of any revelation concerning 
matters of which men can obtain full knowledge by study; 
for to make a divine revelation in such a case would not 
only be unnecessary, but it would be a direct encourage- 
ment to slothful mental habits. 
Many who reject revelation, and throw it aside as unworthy 
of notice, have never sufficiently studied its teachings to 
comprehend what it professes to reveal. What would be 
thought of a man, who, by learning that, two hundred and 
fifty years ago, astronomers thought that the sun was not 
over five millions of miles distant from the earth, should 
now reject all present calculations of astronomers because 
they teach that the sun is over ninety millions of miles 
away ? 
This would be entirely parallel with the acts of those who 
throw the idea of revelation aside without proper considera- 
tion because three hundred years ago, or even in later years, 
ignorant men have claimed meanings for its teachings which 
were never intended by its writers. 
If one receives the Bible as a revelation from God, or the 
Supreme Ruler of the universe, he should expect to find 
many statements which the present generation will but 
imperfectly understand; and many of its teachings will not 
be thoroughly understood until, through the evolution of 
events, or by the progress of scientific knowledge, light 
bursts upon our imperfectly informed students of its mys- 
teries. 
No man has a right to throw aside such a book as worth- 
less until he has first candidly studied it with the purpose of 
harmonizing its apparent discrepancies, supposing such 
apparent discrepancies to exist; and no man who. studies 56 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
such a book while prejudiced against it can be an impartial 
judge either of its value or worthlessness. 
Let me not be understood by this to attempt to discourage 
scientific research. True scientific inquiry is one of the 
noblest pursuits in which men can engage. What lam now 
objecting to is the egotism displayed by certain parties 
claiming to be scientific. 
Having said this by way of explanation, I will now 
attempt to develop some ideas connected with the question 
" Whence is life ? ” 
A book was written long ago not expressly to teach 
geography or astronomy, or any other physical science ; but 
that book does profess to teach us the origin of life and its 
final destiny, and makes positive assertions about matters 
w'hich have long puzzled scientific men. Among these 
assertions are the following : 
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
earth.” 
" And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the 
moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly 
above the earth.” And farther on it says, "So God created 
man in his own image : in the image of God created he him ; 
male and female created he them.” And, " God breathed 
into the nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living 
soul.” 
How do these statements agree with the scientific teach- 
ings? Was there a beginning? Was there an original 
creation? Was life first developed in the waters? Was 
man made after the other animals? Was man the last 
creature into whom was breathed the breath of life ? Does 
not geology indicate that successive races of animals lived 
before man existed on the earth ? Does not natural history WHENCE IS LIFE? 
57 
indicate that the earliest living creatures appeared in the 
waters ? 
The Duke of Argyll says, p. 113, "Primeval Man,” 
" The evidence of geology has always been, that among all 
the creatures which have in succession been formed to live 
upon this earth, and to enjoy it, man is the latest born. 
This great fact is still the fundamental truth in the history of 
creation. That history, as geology has revealed it, has been 
a history of successive creations and of successive destruc- 
tions, old forms of life perishing, and new forms appearing; 
so that the whole face of nature has been many times 
•renewed.” 
Well, then, how about the other two assertions, viz., of 
an original creation; and, that God was the Creator? Are 
these as likely to be true as the other two ? The statements 
rest on the same original evidence, viz., the Book. This 
book, moreover, states that out of the ground " God formed 
every beast of the field and fowl of the air.” 
Can any one show that this is not also true? Certainly 
in the ground are found all the materials which enter into the 
bodily composition of men, beasts of the field, and the fowls 
of the air; and who can show that they were not thus formed 
as above stated, even if the popular development theories 
prove to be true ? or that it took millions of years to develop 
a perfect man from the original germs ? 
This book conveys the idea that God was the author and 
originator of all life. Do we know, or does any one know, 
to the contrary? 
I do not introduce this inquiry to contradict anything 
which science has demonstrated; but when the Book states 
truly all facts concerning which we have positive scientific 
testimony on this subject, is it not reasonable to presume 58 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
that its other statements, which science cannot prove to be 
either true or untrue, may also be true? What right, in the 
absence of contrary information, has any one to assert that 
they are not true ? 
But some do not assent to this manner of statement, and, 
if it can be shown that this statement is not founded on 
actual fact, then it must be acknowledged that the origin of 
life is involved in obscurity ; for when we leave this con- 
clusion, and try to find this origin through scientific research, 
the most learned men disagree, and, if they speak freely, 
they admit that they have only suppositions for foundations 
of many of their hypotheses. My inquiries are now limited 
to the life which is on the earth. I do not attempt to inquire 
into the character or origin of life on the planets or stars 
(from want of proper information on this point), though the 
discussion of planet life might be as sensible and profitable 
as many of the discussions concerning evidence in support of 
certain modern scientific hypotheses. Yet searching inquiry 
into the foundation principles of scientific truth (if of a 
practical character) is one of the most noble occupations in 
which an intelligent being can be engaged. 
Some, however, assert that all natural bodies are living, 
and that the distinction generally thought to exist between the 
living and the non-living does not really exist. But it seems 
to me that there is a distinct line between the living and the 
dead which should be evident to every one whose mind has 
not become befogged with speculative ideas. I propose to 
examine some of these philosophic speculations in relation 
to the origin of life, and see if we can deduce any useful or 
profitable conclusions concerning the same; and also bring 
to view as much real truth as may be gleaned from my 
means of investigation. WHENCE IS LIFE? 
59 
The most important question connected with man’s origin 
and destiny is one which science cannot demonstrate, viz., 
"If a man die shall he live again ? ” The question whether 
man is to continue in a state of conscious existence after 
death is much more important than how he happened to be 
in existence, or whence his life came. As far as science has 
been able positively to teach, both questions are involved in 
mystery ; and they are not only intimately connected, but 
that pertaining to a future existence (if it can be shown 
that a future existence is probable) has a momentous 
bearing upon man’s highest welfare. But in writing thus 
it is proper to remember that some do not believe in the 
immortality of the soul, or in its spiritual existence, and 
hence such must be approached from another direction, and 
must be reasoned with on other grounds, if we are to have 
satisfactory arguments with them. Materialistic doctrines 
are preached, printed, and urged with vigor, and are read 
far and wide, and it is unwise for those who claim to be 
guided by reason to throw such thoughts and supposed dis- 
coveries aside without due consideration. 
But that my readers who feel so great delight in the con- 
templation of a blissful future existence may not be disturbed 
by the course of this discussion, it is proper to remark at 
this stage that the questions which arise in discussions 
between materialism and spiritualism run into each other to 
a greater extent than the decided advocates of either theory 
seem to imagine. 
Suppose, for instance, that a materialist assumes that souls 
of men (if they have any) are material: what then ? Does 
he know that it is so, or does any one know to the con- 
trary? We can easily Imagine that a material essence may 
exist and yet be a thousand times more tenuous than the 60 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
most subtle gas we know of; it may still be material and 
yet of such extreme tenuity that no human intelligence can 
tell whether it is material or immaterial. Thus the dis- 
cussions concerning the question whether the spirit of man 
is material or immaterial are not of so essential importance 
as many suppose, and the decision either way (which of 
course no man can positively give) cannot touch the 
question of all questions, the one of supreme importance, 
viz., that pertaining to the continued conscious existence of 
moral and intelligent beings after death; though I am 
aware that some of the best men fear that the admission of a 
doubt upon this immaterial question may be attended with 
disastrous consequences to cherished beliefs and brightest 
hopes. I do not share these fears ; for, if assured of a con- 
tinued conscious and happy existence, it is not of much 
consequence whether this existence is continued in material 
or immaterial garments. 
But to return to our question: "Whence is life?” We 
may properly inquire, where do we discover the first 
appearance of life ? It is generally conceded that the basis 
of all physical life is " protoplasm,” or, as Dr. Beale more 
properly calls it, "bioplasm.” I shall, however, use the 
term protoplasm, because it is so generally used by a large 
class of writers on the point under consideration. 
Protoplasm consists of minute particles of organic matter. 
These particles, or molecules, enter into the composition of 
all living plants and animals, and now two distinct theories 
of the origin of life confront us. 
As stated in a previous chapter, for ages past physiolo- 
gists of two different schools have opposed each other on the 
question whether life is a cause or aA effect. One school of 
physiologists claims that life is simply the result of the WHENCE IS LIFE? 
61 
organization of matter, and hence life cannot exist separate 
from matter. The other school asserts that life is not the 
result of organization, but is the cause of the organization 
of matter into living beings. 
These two theories are as wide apart as the poles, and the 
whole question turns upon one actual fact, and this fact 
fixes, or determines, the position which life holds in connec- 
tion with all animated existences upon earth. Briefly stated, 
it is whether life is the cause which precedes and regulates 
the formation of living organisms, or whether life follows 
and is added to the organization as a result. 
Is the principle of life the cause which operates to pro- 
duce or evolve living beings ? Does it impel the particles 
of protoplasm or bioplasm to come together, and become 
distributed throughout the organism, so that bones and 
muscles grow and build themselves up into visible corporeal 
frameworks ? 
We must bear in mind that one distinguishing trait of liv- 
ing matter is motion. Many confound the action of living 
matter with that of crystallization, and represent their 
actions to be similar. But the action of living matter 
differs greatly from that of crystallization, from the fact that 
living matter moves by internal power, while crystallization 
never does this. Organic matter, or bioplasm, goes by its 
own motion to inorganic matter, and takes it up and as- 
similates it. Inorganic matter has no power itself to move, 
though it may be attracted by another body. Doubtless life 
exists in granules of protoplasm or bioplasm long before 
their molecules become large enough to be seen by or with 
the most powerful microscopes. 
And a motion similar to that in the smallest particles 
which we can discover doubtless exists before we can by 62 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
any means discover any motion. Can we then conclude 
that the corporeal system is brought together by chemical or 
other causes, and life simply a concomitant, resulting from 
the organization, brought in by natural causes, and thus 
worked into the wonderful living mechanisms found in various 
animals, and in the highest types of humanity? 
In regard to the commencement of human physical exist- 
ence and the acts which spring from inherited tendencies, 
Dr. Maudsley says : "No power of microscope or chemistry» 
no power which science can make use of will enable us to 
distinguish the human ovum from the ovum of a quadruped; 
yet it is certain that the former has inherited in its nature 
something whereby it develops under suitable conditions into 
the form of a man, and that the latter has in like manner 
inherited something whereby, under suitable conditions, it 
develops into a quadruped.” (p. 21.) 
The nature of the man as well as of the beast is contained 
in the ovum, even when it is less than one hundredth of an 
inch in diameter, when no microscope can enable us to tell 
the beast from the human, and yet, when but little enlarged 
from this minute state, the living creature is already divided 
into two sides, which resemble two leaves, and molecular 
actions are then going on as surely as in the mature organism. 
When more enlarged, minute specks representing beginnings 
of arms and legs appear; but even then it is impossible to 
tell whether it is a biped or a quadruped, although the whole 
peculiar nature is already there ; so true is it now, as in 
the days of Adam, that " every living thing brings forth 
after its kind.” The nature being in the ovum, if we are to 
look for the starting-point wTe must look for germs of life 
antecedent to anything which wTe can detect with the micro- 
scope, even to the first atom of living matter, which attracts WHENCE IS LIFE? 
63 
to itself another congenial atom of like matter and then com- 
mences to build the physical framework of the living animal. 
The ultimate principle of life must be then in these living 
particles. But this does not explain when or where the 
personal life of separate individuals commences. 
To show that living action can be seen in minute specks 
of bioplasm, I quote (second hand) from Dr. Beale. " One 
characteristic of every kind of living matter is spontaneous 
movement. This, unlike any movement of non-living 
matter yet discovered, occurs in all directions, and seems to 
depend on changes in the matter itself rather than on im- 
pulses from without. I have been able to watch the move- 
ments of small amoeba under a magnifying power of five 
thousand diameters. Several of these were less than a 
hundred thousandth part of an inch in diameter, and yet 
were in a state of most active movement. The alterations 
in form were very rapid. They might be described as 
minute portions of very transparent material, exhibiting the 
most active movement in various directions in every part, 
and capable of absorbing nutrient materials. A portion of 
what was one moment at the lowest point would pass in an 
instant to the highest. One part seemed, as it were, to pass 
through the other parts, while the whole mass moved, now in 
one, now in another direction. What movements in lifeless 
matter can be compared with these ? ” 
Doubtless the living principle commences to build the 
ovum when it is as minute as these specks of living matter; 
and this is- as really life, in one of its phases, as the life in 
mature individuals. But the life of a separate individual as 
a real personality commences when the seed, or male cell, 
and egg, or female cell, coalesce and become one; and this, 
in most cases, doubtless occurs before these combined cells 64 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
are one hundredth of an inch in diameter. Then these 
combined cells commence to throw off other cells of two 
different kinds, and one kind goes to build up the outside 
framework of bones, muscles, limbs, skin, etc., and the 
other kind goes to form our inside organs, as heart, lungs, 
stomach, bowels, etc. ; and thus the framework goes on till 
the physical form is complete. Not only every beast, but 
every plant, brings forth after its kind, and the nature of the 
plant is contained in the, seed. 
Why should trees planted side by side, with their roots 
running in like soil, secrete juices so different from each 
other? Why should the maple secrete sugar, while by its 
side the deadly nightshade secretes poison? What power 
short of infinite intelligence could endow these trees with 
such wondrous powers of discrimination that none ever 
make a mistake, and secrete any nourishment which can 
change their distinctive characters? 
Water is supposed to be the vehicle which carries nourish- 
ment over the tree or plant, and leaves it where it belongs. 
Water holds in solution various kinds of protoplasm, and 
carries them over the living tree to its smallest twig1 and the 
O O 
most tiny bud. Afterwards the water is evaporated, and 
passes into the air pure water; but it leaves in the tree 
some of the solid matter which it previously held in solution. 
A large part of the living tree is water. So of our own 
bodies, over 70 per cent, is water, and about the same pro- 
portion of our blood is water. Without water there can be 
no living, active, physical existence. Water in our blood is 
believed to carry over our bodies the nourishment needed to 
sustain us, placing particles which make our bones and mus- 
cles and brains just where they belong. 
We have said that living actions are in the ovum when it WHENCE IS LIFE? 
65 
is only a minute globule, and that life has distinguishing 
traits in the little embryo, though we cannot tell what kind 
of animal it is ; but even at the very first existence the life 
principle is exercising its preserving influences ; for let life 
be destroyed, and then what? The molecular action which 
is peculiar to life ceases instantly, and the very first chemi- 
cal or molecular action that succeeds is that peculiar to dead 
bodies, and in the direction of decomposition. No chemical 
differences just before death and just after can be detected in 
the mature animal; but the ceasing of the living kind of 
molecular action is instantaneous at death (or really is 
death), though digestion or chemical action often continues 
in the stomach after death. But digestion is not a vital 
action. 
Now what is the power which causes an instantaneous 
stoppage of living action? What is that which leaves the 
body that instantaneously produces a difference so radical? 
Is this change the result of disorganization? Or does the 
departure of the living principle cause this change? If 
organization is the cause of life, and life merely the result, 
would not the character of the organization instantly change 
at death? But can we detect any difference in the physical 
organization just before and just after death? So far as can 
be seen with the most powerful microscopes, the very com- 
mencement or beginning of every animal organism is accom- 
panied by life. If organization is the cause of life, then life 
is its effect. As the cause must always precede the effect, so 
if organization is the cause of life, then organization must pre- 
cede life. But, if this does so precede, why is it that no man 
with the most powerful microscope ever saw animal or vege- 
table organization beginning before life is in it? Are they 
coexistent ? It is quite a different thing to suppose that life’s 66 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
principle is the cause of organization ; for the principle of life, 
if it has a real existence, is invisible, and hence could not be 
expected to be seen doing this work of organization. Its work 
can only be seen in its effects. Rapid vital action can be seen 
in the most minute amoeba; but no such action was ever 
seen in inorganic matter. If departure of life causes a change 
towards decomposition, why should not the entering in of 
life be the immediate cause of composition or organization? 
It is true that those who understand that the original 
creation of man, as described in Gen. 2 : 7, is to be taken as 
a literal statement of fact will find that man was made out 
of the dust of the earth, and his physical organization com- 
pleted before God breathed into him the breath of life. In 
this one case, as stated, organization preceded life. But 
there is little fear that those who contend that organization 
preceded life will cite the case of the original creation of 
man as an authority to which they would appeal in regard to 
the present manner of the production of life. 
Prof. James Orton, in his work on comparative zoology, 
speaking of the lowest organisms, p. 30, says: "It has 
been supposed that muscular and nervous matter is diffused 
in a molecular form ; but all we can say is, that the highest 
power of the microscope reveals no organized structure 
whatever, i.e., there are no parts set apart for a particular 
purpose, but a fragment is as good as the whole to perform 
all the function of life. The animal series, therefore, begins 
with forms that feel without nerves, move without muscles, 
and digest without a stomach; in other words, life is the 
cause of organization, and not the result of it. Animals do 
not live because they are organized, but are organized 
because they are alive.” 
Herbert Spencer says : " Does structure originate function, WHENCE IS LIFE? 
67 
or does function originate structure ? is a question about 
which there has been disagreement. Using the word func- 
tion in its widest signification, as the totality of all vital 
actions, the question amounts to this: Does life produce 
organization, or does organization produce life ? ” 
" To answer this question is not easy, since we habitually 
find the two so associated that neither seems possible without 
the other; and they appear uniformly to increase and 
decrease together.” . . . "There is, however, one fact 
implying that function must be regarded as taking precedence 
of structure. Of the lowest rhizopods, which present no 
distinctions of parts, and nevertheless feed, and grow, and 
move about, Prof. Huxley has remarked that they exhibit 
life without organization.” (" Biology,” pp. 153 and 154, 
vol. 1.) 
" It may be argued that, on the hypothesis of evolution, 
life necessarily comes before organization. On this hypoth- 
esis, organic matter in a state of homogeneous aggregation 
must precede organic matter in a state of heterogeneous 
aggregation. But since the passing from a structureless 
state to a structured state is itself a vital process, it follows 
that vital activity must have existed while there was yet no 
structure; structure could not else arise. That function 
takes precedence of structure seems also implied in the defi- 
nition of life. If life consists of inner actions so adjusted as 
to balance outer actions, —if the actions are the substance 
of life, while the adjustment of them constitutes its form, 
then may we not say that the actions to be formed must 
come before that which forms them? that the continuous 
change which is the basis of function must come before the 
structure which brings function into shape? 
"Or, again, since, throughout all phases of life up to the 68 
WHAT IS LIFE ? 
highest, every advance is the effecting of some better adjust- 
ment of inner to outer actions, and since the accompanying 
new complexity of structure is simply a means of making 
possible this better adjustment, it follows that function 
is from beginning to end the determining cause of structure.” 
("Principles of Biology,” vol. 1, p. 167.) 
It seems to me that these extracts ought to carry convic- 
tion ; but I will quote once more, and this time from the 
Duke of Argyll, He says : 
"The deeper we go into science the more certain it 
becomes that all the realities of nature are in the region of 
the invisible ; so that the saying is literally and not merely 
figuratively true, that the things which are seen are tem- 
poral, and it is only the things which are not seen that are 
eternal. For example, we never see the phenomena of life 
dissociated from organization : yet the profoundest physiolo- 
gists have come to the conclusion that organization is not the 
cause of life, but, on the contrary, that life is the cause of 
organization, life being something a force of some kind, 
by whatever name we may call it which precedes organi- 
zation, and fashions it, and builds it up. This is the conclu- 
sion come to by the great anatomist Hunter, and it is the 
conclusion indorsed in our own day by such men as Dr. 
Carpenter and Prof. Huxley, men neither of whom have 
exhibited in their philosophy any undue bias towards either 
theological or metaphysical explanations.” ("Feign of 
Law,” p. 118.) 
Many are now looking for the beginning of life among 
very minute animals which are as little as possible removed 
from inorganic matter, and if they could only once see in- 
organic matter changing into organic, and observe in what 
this change consists, and how it is accomplished, then a WHENCE IS LIFE? 
69 
starting-point might be found. Some are still sanguine that 
this process will be discovered. I do not belong to this 
hopeful class. 
It seems to me to be quite as profitable to scrutinize with 
more care the origin of animals higher in the scale of life. 
The inductive method can just as well be applied here, and 
apparently with quite as much profit. But most of this kind 
of investigation seems to have fallen into the hands of those 
who are inclined to believe that all the forces which make 
these wondrous changes inhere in matter itself. 
Many of them are careful not to express their opinions, as 
to how or by whom this power became fixed in nature, 
though some are ready enough to state that, in their opinion, 
this power was never placed in nature, but that it has existed 
there eternally. 
Since writing this last paragraph I see that Prof. Birks 
takes a similar view as to the proper place to begin investi- 
gations, when speaking of individuality (p. 279, " Modern 
Physical Fatalism”), as follows : 
" The objections which have been raised to the essential 
individuality of life are drawn entirely from its lowest and 
most obscure forms, or microscopic animalcules, invisible to 
the naked eye. These are exceedingly minute in size, their 
number immense, their modes of reproduction very similar, 
and the laws of their reproduction very difficult to trace. But 
it surely reverses the first lesson of genuine philosophy to 
have recourse to the most obscure corner of a wide and 
important science for its definitions. This is to interpret day 
by night, and clear sunshine by mist or darkness. In all the 
higher forms of life, with which mankind has been familiar 
for long ages, the marks of individuality are clear, decisive, 
and irresistible.” 70 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
It may be asked, What good can come from inquiry into 
such hidden mysteries ? In turn, I ask, What harm can come 
from it ? The truth can stand the most searching inquiry; 
and any theory which cannot abide the most searching inves- 
tigation had better be surrendered. I have no fears for the 
safety of eternal truth. 
Materialists contend that there is no such thing as " vital 
force ” separate from matter. 
Monists assert that there can be only one original force in 
the universe. 
Dr. Haeckel, the greatest living exponent of monism, or 
the unity of force and matter, writes (p. 456, vol. 2, "Evo- 
lution of Man”) : "Goethe says, matter can never exist 
and act without spirit, neither can spirit without matter. 
The real materialistic philosophy asserts that the vital phe- 
nomena of motion, like all other phenomena of motion, are 
effects or products of matter.” That is, that all active forces 
in living animals are the product of matter. 
" The other opposite extreme, spiritualistic philosophy, as- 
serts, on the contrary, that matter is the product of a motive 
force, and that all material forms are produced by free 
forces entirely independent of the matter itself. Thus, ac- 
cording to the materialistic conception of the universe, 
matter, or substance, precedes motion, or active force. Ac- 
cording to the spiritualistic conception of the universe, on 
the contrary, active force, or motion, precedes matter.” That 
is, the spiritualistic view is that there must have been an 
active spiritual force to organize matter into worlds as well 
as into living animals, or else they could not have existed. 
Dr. I Deckel adds, in regard to both the materialistic and 
spiritualistic views, as follows : " Both views are dualistic, 
and we hold them both to be equally false. A contrast to WHENCE IS LIFE? 
71 
both views is presented in the monistic philosophy, which cun 
as little believe in force without matter as in matter without 
force.” Also, " The spirit and mind of man are but forces 
which are inseparably connected with the material substance 
of our bodies.” 
Again (on p. 457) : " The magnet attracting iron 
filings, powder exploding, steam driving the locomotive, 
are active inorganic substances. They work by active 
force, just as does the sensitive mimosa when it folds its 
leaves at a touch, as does the amphioxus when it buries 
itself in the sand, as does man when he thinks.” 
" Only in these latter cases the combination of the differ- 
ent forces appearing as phenomena of motion is much 
more complex and much less easily recognized than in the 
former cases.” 
Although Haeckel does not say in so many words that 
the active inorganic and organic forces are just the same in 
kind, or that the living forces in men are of the same 
quality as the explosive qualities in gunpowder, yet, by all 
fair rules of reasoning, he leaves us to infer that all the dif- 
ference he believes to be in these forces is in their com- 
plexity, and not in their kind; that is, they appear to be 
different merely because one is more pronounced. But in 
the quality of the acts there is no difference : both proceed 
from the same forces in nature; and these are one and in- 
divisible in their real nature. 
On p. 17, vol. 1, Dr. Haeckel says of the doctrine 
of evolution, "ithas enabled us to substitute everywhere 
unconscious causes acting from necessity for conscious 
purposive causes.” He adds that the monistic philosophy 
" must ultimately prevail through philosophy.” 
It is easy to make the statement that there is no need of 72 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
any spiritual being to organize matter into worlds, or to 
put life into living animals, if we are able to " substitute 
unconscious causes everywhere for the conscious causes,” 
which people have thought must have existed, and thus 
dispense with the necessity of any intelligent planning and 
organizing of the universe, because the causes of all these 
things have acted from necessity. 
But how does this account for the origin of things? 
How could this necessity of which he speaks exist unless 
some power behind or antecedent to this necessity ordered 
that things should of necessity take place? To attempt to 
account for the origin of things in this way is simply to 
plunge into greater darkness ; for it accounts for nothing 
till he informs us how this necessity came to exist. 
Prof. Birks says : " The attempt to get rid of purpose or 
design, so as to refer all the acts of living creatures to 
mechanical laws and processes alone, is revolting to the 
common-sense of mankind. Under learned phrases it 
strives vainly to conceal an unusual amount of self-con- 
tradiction and logical absurdity. The hive bee aims at 
constructing its cell, and then storing it with honey; the 
bird uses much skill in building its nest and preparing it 
for the • future process of incubation. The mason does not 
seem more truly to follow the design of the architect than 
insects of various kinds satisfy the outlines of some plan or 
type in forming their habitations, which has been appointed 
to. them from the beginning.” 
Now if nature alone (without any intelligence control- 
ling the laws of nature) teaches the bees to build their 
combs, and the birds to build their nests, we may be un- 
reasonable to require an answer as to how this supposed 
necessity happened to exist. But, in regard to the sup- WHENCE IS LIFE? 
73 
posed innate powers of nature, or the power of originating 
life, which monists contend inheres in matter, it may be re- 
marked that if the Deity, in pursuance of his plan, chose to 
endow matter with life-originating powers, without doubt 
he had the power to do so. But the simple question now to 
be answered is, has he done so? 
All persons who believe that the body and the soul are 
separate and different qualities or entities are called dualists; 
and those who believe that the soul may exist prior to, or 
separate from, or independent of the physical organization 
are called spiritualists. But these last are also dualists. 
Under this classification all who believe the teachings of 
Socrates and Plato are spiritualists, though of necessity 
they are dualists. 
We have stated our belief that " Life is the cause of 
organization ; ” and thus you will see that we must also 
believe in a principle of life existing antecedent to any out- 
ward manifestations of life either in men or animals, and in 
fact ■ that this indispensable force underlies all physical 
life. 
On the other hand, materialists and monists deny that 
there is any living or life-giving force separate from or dis- 
connected with matter; and the reason they can maintain 
what seems fallacious is because we cannot see any mani- 
festations of force or being unless that force is connected 
with or acts on matter. Even an emotion of the soul, 
though doubtless immaterial, cannot be perceived by us 
except through the action of the brain, a physical organ, and 
thus it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of soul, 
mind, or feelings separate from our bodies ; and this is why 
monists have the courage to challenge men to confute their 
statements. 74 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
It has been asserted that since the brain is the organ of 
the mind, mind cannot exist except in connection with the 
brain. 
While conceding that man can see no manifestations of 
mind except through its physical organ, the brain, no one 
is justified in asserting that mind may not precede the very 
organization of the brain, and have existed prior to and 
hence separate from it. 
For anything that man knows to the contrary preexisting 
mind not perceptible by man may have been the cause which 
gave to the brain its particular shape, and then took the 
brain as its organ of communication with other intelligent 
creatures. For all that we know mind may be coexistent 
with life, and doubtless was in the beginning, if there ever 
was a beginning. So it may be coexistent with life in the 
ovum, at the very commencement, when the first combined 
cells begin to throw off other cells, and thus commence the 
development of the embryo. 
When men assert that soul cannot exist separate from 
matter they state what they do not know; and thus we are 
again thrown back upon first principles, and obliged to 
reason not from what we can see with our eyes but upon 
general manifestations of existence as displayed all around us. 
Much has been written upon this subject. I will now 
give some extracts from leading thinkers, that we may see 
the grounds of difference between them. There are different 
grades of each of the classes enumerated above, but when 
I refer to either of them it is as scientists, not as religion- 
ists. Thus, among spiritual scientists there are two essen- 
tially different classes. Some are of the Berkeley stamp, 
who do not believe in the existence of matter, and think " All 
being may be reduced to mind, or ideas in a mind.” WHENCE IS LIFE? 
75 
J. G. Fichte says : "One of the two, spirit or matter, we 
must let drop : the actually true and real being is spiritual; 
and there is no other being.” 
Czolbe says (See "Voc. Phil. Sci.,” by Krauth, p. 908) : 
" The power of organisms cannot be explained by the plan- 
less and formless chemical and physical activities. Nothing 
is left us but to throw ourselves into the arms of mysti- 
cism by accepting a supersensuous vital force, or in acknowl- 
edging the eternity of matter to acknowledge also the 
eternity of form.” 
On the other hand, Moleschott " opposes the doctrine of 
vital force, as he defines it,—a force without substratum, 
and yet endowed with personal quality.” 
Schopenhauer says (Krauth, p. 909): "The polemic 
against the supposition of a vital force is stupid.” " The 
denial of the vital force is absurd. Were there not a 
peculiar force of nature, to which it is as essential to act 
in conformity with aim as it is essential to gravity to 
draw bodies towards each other; did it not move, guide, 
regulate the whole complicated mechanism of organism, 
life would be an illusion, an imposition, and we should have 
a mere automaton, a plaything of mechanical, physical, and 
chemical forces. It is not disputed that physical and chem- 
ical forces are at work in organisms, but that which holds 
them together and guides them, so that an organism con- 
forms to its purpose, comes to being and subsists, that is 
vital force.” " The vital force certainly uses and brings into 
its employ the forces of inorganic nature, but by no means 
consists of them ; just as little as a blacksmith consists of his 
hammer and anvil.” " Hence, not the very simplest plant life 
can be explained by those forces, as, for example, by capillary 
attraction, or by endosmosis, to say nothing of animal life,” 76 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
" A fundamental distinction between the vital force and all 
other forces of nature has been in the fact that when the 
vital force once forsakes a body it never takes it into pos- 
session again.” 
How radically different this from the action of natural, 
chemical, and mechanical forces, as electricity, magnetism, 
etc. ! The same body may be magnetized and demagnetized, 
or electrified and relieved of its electricity, many times, with- 
out change in the appearance of the body. So simple 
chemical elements may be compounded, decomposed, and 
recompounded, almost to any extent. Why? Because 
such action is mechanical instead of vital. 
It seems to me that nearly every one who comes with un- 
prejudiced mind to a careful study of the vital forces or prin- 
ciple must reach the conclusion that something besides mere 
mechanical and chemical forces is required to originate, 
build up, and preserve living, thinking, and reasonable men. 
This question concerning an original living force is in- 
timately connected with the origin of our conscious existence, 
and with the question, how can mental and spiritual exist- 
ences be connected with physical systems ? Here is a region 
in which reason and philosophy must take the place of 
physical demonstrations ; for, notwithstanding all claims to 
the contrary, there are no physical demonstrations on this 
point. 
The Duke of Argyll well says ("Reign of Law,”p. 271) : 
" Science should be allowed without suspicion or remonstrance 
to pursue her proper object, which is to detect, if she can, 
what the method of this work has been. There is no point 
short of the last and the highest at which science can be 
satisfied. Her curiosity is insatiable. It is a curiosity rep- 
resenting man’s desire for knowledge. But that desire ex- WHENCE IS LIFE? 
77 
tends into regions where the means of investigation cease 
and in which the processes of verification are of no avail. 
Above and behind every detected method in nature there lies 
the same ultimate question as before, what is it by which 
this is done? It is the great mystery of our being that we 
have powers impelling us to ask such questions on the his- 
tory of creation, when we have no powers enabling us to 
solve them.” "The faculties of both reason and imagination 
fall back with a sense of impotence upon some favorite phrase, 
some form of words built up out of the materials of anal- 
ogy, and out of the experience of a mind, which, being finite, 
is not creative. We beat against the bars in vain. The 
only real rest is in the confession of ignorance, and the con- 
fession, too, that all ultimate physical truth is beyond the 
reach of science.” 
This again brings us face to face with the question, 
" Whence is life? ” The Duke further says (p. 273) : Crea- 
tion by law, evolution by law, development by law, or, 
as including all those kindred ideas, the reign of law, is 
nothing but the reign of creative force directed by creative 
knowledge, worked under the control of creative power, and 
in fulfilment of creative purpose.” And after all our in- 
quiries concerning the origin of life, and under what law it 
came into existence, the reflecting mind cannot help going 
further, and asking, " whither ? ” 
With those who contend that life, soul, and matter are 
inseparable, we cannot hold much argument on the direct 
question of the origin of life ; for if life and intelligence are 
of necessity coupled with matter, or sprung from matter, 
there is nothing to argue about. But until monists and 
materialists can bring something beyond mere assertion, I 
shall proceed on the theory that a vital principle, or living 78 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
force, underlies all physical life, and that all living beings 
now on the earth received their life from antecedent life just 
as certainly as they have received their physical systems from 
beings with physical organs. And further, that all life now 
on the earth had its origin in the first self-existent being. 
But why assume the existence of a self-existent being? 
How can we comprehend this ? 
We comprehend this just as well as men do the assertion 
that matter must have existed eternally. There is quite as 
direct evidence of a self-existent, Almighty intelligence, as 
there is that matter, even in its simple elements, is eternal. 
If matter is eternal, it seems evident that its eternal qualities 
must inhere in its simple elements, or in cosmic vapor, and 
not in compound bodies, as matter now generally exists. 
However, before proceeding further in the direct line of 
argument, let us consider some preliminaiy speculations and 
facts concerning the first origin of things. Every event 
which now occurs has some antecedent, and every effect has 
a cause ; but, if the same laws of cause and effect always 
existed, how could we get to the first cause, or a cause which 
was not caused? Is there an infinitely-extended chain of 
causes without a beginning? We have two alternatives, 
viz., either to suppose that during past time or eternity the 
same relations of cause and effect which now act by or 
through invariable antecedents and sequence did not then 
exist as they do now, and hence that parts of what we now 
recognize as the laws of nature have not been eternally in 
existence, or we may assume that all natural laws have eter- 
nally existed. 
But if we assume that something is self-existent, or 
always existed, what is that something? Mind certainly 
exists, and matter certainly appears to exist. Did mind WHENCE IS LIFE? 
79 
precede the existence of matter? Or have both mind and 
matter existed eternally? Or has matter alone existed from 
all eternity, while mind has not so existed ? And has mind 
been evolved from matter, as some suppose? If so, by what 
process was this evolution accomplished ? Or, on the other 
hand, did mind, through its act or acts, cause matter to be 
spoken into existence? Our minds are so constituted that it 
is easier to conceive that both mind and matter existed eter- 
nally than to suppose that something material was created 
out of nothing. But we are necessarily driven to one of three 
conclusions : first, either the supposed existence of matter is 
a delusion; or, secondly, something has been created out of 
nothing ; or, thirdly, that matter existed eternally. Can we 
believe that mind is the product of matter? How can we 
account for its existence ? Can we conceive it as self- 
existent ? If only one principle or entity can be self-exist- 
ent, is that entity mind or matter, material or immaterial? 
The same difficulties arise in regard to the origin of life 
as in regard to the origin of intelligence and of conscious 
existence; and the question naturally arises, How did life 
first happen to exist? Can it be that life, by its very nature, 
was self-existent? Or was there an original self-existent 
being, who, from his very nature, is the father of all suc- 
ceeding life, or, figuratively speaking, the fountain from 
which all succeeding streams of life have flowed ? 
Speculate as we may, there must be solid truth which 
would answer all these questions if we are able to discover 
it. But the difficulty which stares us in the face is the 
question, How can we discover the foundation truths in 
regard to these questions ? Two thoughts readily arise: 
First, we may never be able to know these facts ; and, second, 
it may not be necessary that we should ever know. Another 80 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
question is this : if it is beyond the capacity of the human 
mind to discover all the facts pertaining to the origin of life 
through investigation and study, would a self-existent intel- 
ligence be likely to reveal to men the foundation facts in 
regard to life’s origin ? Is it really necessary that man 
should know this? If it is, does it not seem likely that a 
being who nearly all thoughtful men believe existed eternally 
might reveal the most important facts concerning this origin 
to man? Men claiming to be inspired and instructed by a 
self-existent intelligence have written what they assert to be 
a divine revelation in regard to life’s origin. Is it im- 
probable that these men have had revealed to them the real 
truth ? Is it reasonable to believe that all life has been re- 
ceived from a self-existent life ? 
Can we think of a more probable origin, or name one 
easier to be understood? Surely, if it is necessary for us to 
know the fundamental truths concerning this question, 
should we not reasonably expect that this knowledge would 
be revealed to us ? 
It is easier to ask than to answer these questions ; but our 
subject leads us to consider these questions and inquire how 
near we may approximate to the proper answers. Following 
out these lines of thought, we may assume that everything 
compounded from simple substances must have been in 
simple elements before it could be compounded; and if 
so, the compound body must have come into existence as 
such later than these simple elements, and hence, from its 
very nature (if the above supposition is correct), the com- 
pound cannot be eternal.1 
1 While discussing questions concerning the origin of things, it is well to re- 
member that we do not for a certainty know what either spirit or matter is; but 
we must use these words according to their commonly accepted meanings. WHENCE IS LIFE? 
Take, for instance, one of the most common elements in 
nature, water: is it not philosophic to suppose that oxygen 
and hydrogen existed in immense quantities within the 
region occupied by the solar system before these gases 
united in the proportion of eight to one in weight and two 
to one in volume to form Avater, under the laws of nature? 
Then what power first set the chemical, attractive, or other 
forces at work to make the compound? Was it not the 
same invisible and eternal power which, under natural laws, 
said, let intelligence and brains be united? As the oxygen 
might have existed separate from and independent of the 
hydrogen, so mind, or intelligence, might have existed prior 
to the existence of any physical organs. Who knoAvs to the 
contrary ? 
We must keep in mind that life and intelligence are 
essentially different things ; and, although avc are accustomed 
to group them together, avc do not know how intelligence 
can exist separate from some kind of life. We suppose that 
life may exist without intelligence ; but we believe that in- 
telligence cannot exist without accompanying life. Yet in- 
telligence may linger in a man even Avhen we can detect no 
signs of mind remaining. For instance, a pressure upon the 
brain may destroy all appearance of intelligence, and the 
removal of that pressure restore the power of action to the 
brain, and with it the power of memory and reason. This 
could not have been the case if the intelligence did not 
really exist somewhere (though to our senses in an im- 
perceptible degree), while the pressure continued upon the 
brain. 
But life exists in a tree without any accompanying mani- 
festations of intelligence which we can see ; and yet wre do 
not know that trees may not have dim outlines of intelligence ; 82 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
but we take it for granted that they have no intelligence. 
But we have no tangible evidence that any intelligence now 
exists upon the earth without physical life, as we can per- 
ceive no intelligence except in living animals. We infer 
then that some kind of life must be coexistent with all 
intelligent action, as intelligence can be manifested only by 
living beings. But if, on the other hand, the visible mani- 
festations of being in the world imply intelligent organiza- 
tion, then some intelligent power or force must have been 
coexistent with, if not existent prior to, the first physical 
organization. 
It seems evident that the compound bodies which we now 
see, cannot, in the very nature of things, have been eternally 
in existence as such. 
Well, then, did these simple elements, or cosmic vapors, 
rush blindty and by chance into the orderly combinations and 
exquisitely beautiful arrangements of worlds and systems of 
worlds as they are now, with all their surprising harmonies, 
and that without intelligent guidance ? 
If we can show that at the outset there must have been 
intelligent guidance, of course intelligence must have been 
coexistent with the first atom, or at least must have existed 
before the first ultimate atoms began to be attracted together, 
or rushed together, as believers in a chance world express it. 
If our conceptions concerning the necessary connection of 
life with intelligence are correct, then a life not connected 
with a physical organization must have existed in the very 
beginning (if there ever was a beginning), or at least before 
the first original atoms of matter began to be attracted 
together, life being coexistent with the first intelligence. 
It then appears that life and intelligence would naturally be 
coexistent, and that each existed antecedent to the very WHENCE IS LIFE? 
83 
first movements of matter even if they did not precede the 
very existence of matter. And if life was coexistent with 
the simple elements of matter, and these elements have 
existed eternally, it follows that life, or a living principle, 
must also have existed eternally. But it is as easy for me 
to conceive that intelligence and some kind of life may have 
existed prior to the primary elements of matter as to believe 
that both life and matter are eternal. 
Certain men tell us that the human mind cannot conceive 
of such a thing as self-existent life or intelligence; but I 
beg to dissent from that statement, which is simply an 
assumption, and also to say that, if parties making that 
statement cannot conceive of self-existent intelligence, it by 
no means follows that others may not be able to conceive of 
something pertaining to it, and they have no right to assert 
that others cannot justly reason about it. 
The king of Siam could not understand how water, 
through the action of cold, could become solid, for he had 
never seen ice,—and hence he rejected the statement that 
water could be made solid as absolutely absurd, because 
inconceivable to him. 
I do not claim that the human mind can fully comprehend 
the idea of self-existence, or that it can comprehend the idea 
of the creation of something out of nothing, supposing such 
a thing ever could have happened ; but we know that some- 
thing does exist, and the question is how that something 
came to exist, provided it did not exist eternally. 
The creation of something out of nothing seems unthink- 
O O 
able; and yet the fact of its being unthinkable by no means 
proves that it could not have been done, although I cannot 
comprehend any process through which it could have been 
done. 84 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
The mind is a mysterious thing, and no one has any right 
to assume that others may not understand or comprehend 
certain things because he cannot comprehend them. So 
with infinity and space. I have no doubt that some men 
have a kind of dim comprehension of what has generally 
been considered incomprehensible. lam not alone in this 
opinion, for such thinkers as R. W. Emerson and Theodore 
Parker have plainly intimated as much on this point; and I 
do not think they can be classed with those who believe too 
readily in the supernatural, or that they were unduly credu- 
lous. 
I intend to examine the theory of spontaneous generation, 
but can now only glance at it, and the examination must be 
postponed for subsequent treatment. 
Dr. Eheckel believes that men and animals have descended 
from minute living organisms called monera, and that these 
original organisms came from matter by "spontaneous gen- 
eration” in the "Laurentian period.” This is the way he 
accounts for the first origin of life upon the earth, rather 
than admit that it received its existence from a self-existent 
creator; but I cannot see how it is easier, or indeed how it 
is as easy, to imagine that matter, without preexisting intel- 
ligence, could originate intelligence through chemical action, 
as it is to conceive that life and intelligence were originally 
self-existent. He simply substitutes matter, as the originat- 
ing power, for living intelligence. Hence his theory of 
" spontaneous generation ” does not help us one particle 
towards the solution of the question, whence is life? All 
the evidence in favor of his theory is entirely assumed, for 
no man ever saw "spontaneous generation,” or anything like 
it. Besides, the investigations of M. Pasteur, the distin- 
guished French chemist and physiologist, during the past WHENCE IS LIFE? 
85 
fifteen years, aided by the able scientist Prof. Tyndall, and 
also by the exhaustive experiments of other competent chem- 
ists, have apparently exploded the evidence which certain 
chemists and naturalists had previously adduced in favor of 
the theory of "spontaneous generation,” and proved that 
facts which they supposed indicated spontaneous generation 
did not indicate its existence, and that neither in the present 
nor past history of the world has positive evidence been pro- 
duced which shows that such a thing as spontaneous genera- 
tion ever existed. 
The germ theory, which shows the fallacy of spontaneous 
generation theories, of itself does not state how, in the first 
place, these life-germs came to have existence; but experi- 
ments tend to show that no living creatures now come into 
existence except through life-germs. As such a thing as 
spontaneous generation cannot be shown to exist now, is 
there any good reason to think it ever existed on the earth? 
The forces of nature (according to all we know, or as far 
as we can produce any evidence) are not now less than 
formerly. The doctrine of the conservation of energy, gen- 
erally accepted by our scientific friends, forbids the idea that 
any particle of force is ever lost. Every cause now must 
have its full effect, and that effect must be properly related 
to and equal to its cause, and vice versa. 
And until some one can show that in some past time 
present laws of cause and effect did not exist we must be- 
lieve that they have existed substantially the same as now 
ever since, and probably before, this earth was condensed into 
its present nearly globular shape. 
So now, as man begets man, life begets and has begotten 
life, and there can be no new life except from antecedent 
life. We could never have had life, according to the present 86 
WHAT IS LIFE? 
laws of nature, unless there was antecedent life. But there 
must have been an original life; and that original, or first 
life could not have been begotten, from the want of any pre- 
existing life to beget it; and hence we are forced to the con- 
clusion that this original life was self-existent. 
Advocates of the spontaneous generation theory, however, 
try to avoid this last conclusion by assuming that " spon- 
taneous generation ” existed in the early ages of the earth; 
and they assume this without definite evidence that such a 
thing ever existed, and against what appears to be almost 
conclusive evidence that it has no present existence. 
Now let some one show that, from the nature of the case, 
there could not be an original, self-existent, living, intelli- 
gent being, and then I will confess the reasonableness of the 
wildest scepticism concerning a belief in an original self- 
existent creator. But in default of this, I must insist that 
it is reasonable to believe that all the life of which we see the 
manifestations is derived from a self-existent fountain of life, 
and is produced through infinite creative power. 
How life comes into existence through secondary causes 
and is developed through the laws of nature will be con- 
sidered in other chapters. DEVELOPMENT THEORIES. 
87 
CHAPTER, IY. 
DEVELOPMENT THEORIES. 
In a previous chapter I inquired respecting the origin of 
life, and it is now proper to examine various theories concern- 
ing development of life; for some biologists assert that all 
present living beings have descended from one common 
ancestor. 
One of these theories is known as the hypothesis of 
Lamarck; another, the Darwinian, a great advance and 
improvement upon Lamarck’s. Some who advocate these 
or like theories think they see a complete chain of life from 
the lowest to the highest types. 
There is a common tendency among many who advocate 
radical development theories to accuse such as cannot see 
the consistency of extreme theories of lacking intelligence, 
or in effect saying that the reason why some men do not 
understand and fully accept these theories is because of their 
ignorance, or want of logical power. 
It is well known that Sir Charles Lyell, the eminent geolo- 
gist, came reluctantly to agree to a part of Darwin’s theories. 
In commenting upon this reluctance, Prof. Allen, in his bio- 
graphical sketch of Lyell in "Popular Science Monthly,” 
March, 1882, writes ; " I have illustrated this matter thus fully 
because it is one which very clearly shows the weak side of 
Lyell’s intellect. With all his breadth of mind and freedom 
from prejudice, he was not ever one of those who really get to 
the deepest bottom of things. His tendencies were all in the 88 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
right direction, and his instinct always inclined him to the 
true solution ; but he did not build himself up a set of first 
principles to start with, firmly based upon a philosophical 
foundation, and make these the fixed criteria of his judgments 
throughout.”1 
In Mr. Allen’s article I find no other facts stated which 
indicate any lack of deep reasoning, except this one, viz., 
that it did not comport with Lyell’s judgment to readily and 
fully embrace the popular development theories, including 
the supposed descent of man from ape-like mammals. 
I mention this instance —by no means an uncommon one— 
from the fact that I have been particularly struck with the 
number of statements which occur in the writings of certain 
authors charging a lack of intelligence against those who do 
not accept doctrines of radical evolutionists. 
That all life on the earth is modified by, or made to con- 
form to, external as well as internal conditions is so per- 
fectly natural that it was impressed upon the writer’s mind 
before he has any recollection of learning that it was taught 
by men of science. If we vary the conditions surrounding 
us, whether in regard to climate, light, heat, or moisture, 
those very changed conditions must modify the physical sys- 
tems of men, and with these physical modifications will come 
somewhat analogous mental changes. For instance, the 
reason that most of the inhabitants of Africa are negroes is 
not necessarily because they originally sprung from black 
progenitors, but rather because of the physical character- 
1 David Hume would hardly agree with Mr. Allen in regard to making a set of 
“first principles “fixed criteria of judgments throughout.” He says (Essays, 
p. 93), “ When a philosopher has once laid hold of a favorite principle which per- 
haps accounts for many natural effects, he extends the same principle over the 
whole creation, and reduces to it every phenomenon, though by the most violent 
and absurd reasoning.” INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE. 
89 
istics of that continent taken in connection with habits of 
living through many generations. These peculiar character- 
istics, however, originated anterior to any historical records. 
When European nations have colonized tropical countries, 
the descendants of these colonists have not taken on the 
peculiar characteristics of negroes, but generally, after a few 
generations, these descendants have ceased to produce off- 
spring, and hence the races have run out. This fact strik- 
ingly shows how necessary certain environments are to the 
very existence of any race. Had these descendants been 
able to continue through many generations, perhaps some 
traits of negroes might have appeared in them. 
Different races of animals and men live on the earth be- 
cause the earth is fitted to be their place of residence, and 
not because they were first made to live whether their 
physical surroundings were suitable or not. Make the 
physical changes in the character of the earth great enough, 
and not a human inhabitant could exist upon it. Doubtless 
evolution through natural selection has had an immense influ- 
ence in shaping the character and kinds of life, but it is 
doubtful whether it has done all that the ardent advocates of 
the doctrine believe it has. 
Guyot teaches that even the mountains and the sound of 
the winds of a country will cause harshness or melody in the 
sounds of human language. To a certain extent man must 
O o 
be dependent upon physical environments; and whatever 
doctrines we may advocate concerning the origin and descent 
of species, and however great or however little stress we may 
lay upon the laws of heredity, natural selection, or any other 
theory of evolution, we must admit that the operations of 
laws of evolution go far beyond mere animals and plants. 
They probably extend even to the formation of worlds ; and 90 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
yet no man ever saw any one race of beings transformed into 
another distinct race. 
The general positions of evolutionists are probably correct, 
yet it does not necessarily follow that all their assumptions 
are correct. Among those which may be fairly considered 
of doubtful character may be mentioned that of the supposed 
development of the human race from a catarrhine species of 
apes. 
It may be asked, why, if the writer is inclined to think 
that the theory of the descent of men from animals some- 
what resembling apes may be shown to be probably true, 
he does not say so, and let the matter rest there? 
He does not desire to express any decided opinion con- 
cerning the actual scientific value of this hypothesis ; but the 
conviction is forced on his mind that, whether the hypothesis 
is correct or incorrect, it is put forth by radical evolutionists 
with a greater degree of positiveness than our present knowl- 
edge on the subject justifies. But this theory now seems to 
be making strong headway, and carries before it most of 
those who do not stop to question the validity of widely 
prevalent ideas, and it has all the advocates it needs. The 
danger now is that important facts which appear to point in 
another direction may be overlooked. 
If, however, the writer must choose between the old belief 
in several universal cataclysms, by which all the animals 
which have inhabited the earth at certain geological periods 
have been suddenly swept entirely off and a new set of ani- 
mals suddenly created by successive almighty fiats, and the 
doctrine that the various species of animals which now in- 
habit the earth have been developed by infinitesimal and 
almost imperceptible accretions through immense ages from 
previously existing varieties, and these from one or more EARLY RACES OE MEN. 
91 
original germs, he thinks there is no doubt that the latter 
theory agrees better with what we know of the workings of 
nature’s laws, and thus it may seem probable that man is 
really of animal extraction ; but, if so, it is likely that the race 
branched off long before the state of apehood was reached, 
and some reasons for this opinion can be given. My efforts 
will be directed toward showing that this descent might not 
be through apes, and facts will be produced which throw 
doubt upon his animal extraction. 
The writer takes ground in common with evolutionists on 
certain points as stated by Prof. Edward S. Morse in 
"Popular Science Monthly,” December, 1876, p. 189, viz. : 
" If man has really been derived from an ancestor in common 
with the ape, we must expect to show, first, that in his 
earlier stages he recalls certain persistent characters in the 
apes ; second, that the more ancient man will reveal more 
ape-like features than the present existing man ; and, third, 
that certain characteristics pertaining to early men still per- 
sist in the inferior races of men.” Prof. Morse then devotes 
several pages attempting to prove that such characteristics 
do pertain to the earliest races of men. He cites measure- 
ments and descriptions by Prof. Wyman of certain skulls 
and bones found in the United States, and microcephalic 
skulls from other places, and also mentions the Neanderthal 
and Engis skulls. Why he does not quote from the Duke 
of Argyll, who writes concerning an ancient skull, " This 
most ancient of all known human skulls is so ample in its 
dimensions that it might have contained the brains of a 
philosopher,” the writer does not know. 
Suffice to say, however, that from the evidence which he 
mentions, Prof. Morse draws the conclusion that, "To a 
mind unbiassed by preconceived opinions, and frankly willing 92 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
to interpret the facts as they stand revealed by the study of 
these ancient remains the world over, the evidence of man’s 
lowly origin seems, indeed, overwhelming.” 
Notwithstanding the apparent probability that Prof. Morse 
is correct in this conclusion, the evidence given does not 
appear to be " overwhelming.” But, without taking excep- 
tion to the excellent spirit in which the Professor writes, 
I cannot help remarking that here indeed trouble comes, 
perhaps from " preconceived opinions ; ” but it is pertinent to 
ask whether it was on account of " preconceived opinions ” that 
Virchow declared at Munich that " at this moment there are 
few naturalists who are not of opinion that man is allied to the 
rest of the animal world. Vogt is of opinion that a con- 
nection will be found, if not with apes, then, perhaps, in some 
other direction. I should not be alarmed if proof were found 
that the ancestors of man were vertebrated animals. I work 
by preference in the field of anthropology, yet I must 
declare that every step of positive progress which we have 
made in the domain of prehistoric anthropology has really 
moved farther away from the proof of this connection.” 
He further states that, " only ten years ago, when a skull was 
found in peat, or in the lake dwellings, a wild and undevel- 
oped state was seen in it. We were then scenting monkey 
air. But these old troglodytes turn out to be quite respectable 
society.” 
Some may try to evade the force of this by asserting that 
Virchow is not a consistent evolutionist. But on p. 840, 
" Popular Science Monthly,” October, 1882, the following 
statement occurs concerning Virchow : " His attitude tow- 
ards Darwinism has been likewise misapprehended. Far 
from being an opponent of Darwinism, he should be regarded 
as one of its forerunners.” EARLY RACES OF MEN. 
93 
Is it on account of " preconceived opinions ” that Prof. 
Boyd Dawkins (who is styled by Grant Allen a " consistent 
and bold evolutionist ”) states that, in his opinion, the "cave ” 
or " river-drift ” men were fully equal to the modern Esqui- 
maux ? 
Is it on account of " preconceived opinions ” that Dr. 
Mitchell, of Edinburgh, gives his opinion that the " cave 
men ” were fully equal to the present races of savages, if 
not equal to the present average Englishmen? 
Now let us shift our question. Was it on account of 
" preconceived opinions ” that a great many evolutionists ten 
years since were " scenting monkey air ? ” and so much so 
that questionable facts concerning certain peculiarities per- 
taining to fossil specimens of men and animals were colored 
to make them support the opinions of those who believe that 
man must of necessity have descended from ape-like ances- 
tors? This disposition to grasp every fact which is doubt- 
ful in character, and claim that the very fact of its being 
doubtful argues in favor of the animal descent of man, 
appears to be prima facie evidence that such claimants are 
at least partially aware that no unequivocal evidence 
pointing directly to such animal origin has been dis- 
covered. 
Some writers suppose that the fossil human skulls, con- 
cerning which so much has been written, may not have 
belonged to primitive men at all. These men might have 
lived upon the outskirts of a much higher civilization then 
existing, and at the same time in other parts of the earth 
much higher races of men may have lived. 
The difference of the style of living and the culture may 
have been as great between men inhabiting Egypt and 
Europe in those remote times as the difference which now 94 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE 
exists between the highest nations of Europe and the pres- 
ent Egyptians. 
When the men who bore the Engis and Neanderthal 
skulls were living and acting their parts, races of much 
higher culture and mental ability may have lived in locali- 
ties around Persia, China, or Babylonia. Who knows to the 
contrary ? 
The real value of any hypothesis may be approximately 
known by the number of facts which it fairly explains, or 
which are fairly explained by it. For instance, if out of 
ten well-known facts nine appear to perfectly agree with or 
be consistent with an hypothesis, and only one known fact 
is apparently inconsistent with the supposed hypothesis, 
then, generally speaking, we may say that there are nine 
chances in ten that the hypothesis is a correct one. If one 
fact appears utterly inconsistent with the hypothesis, then we 
may justly reject the hypothesis, or hold the theory provi- 
sionally, and look for further light. 
Thus, with the general theory of evolution, so many facts 
appear to be perfectly consistent with it, and so few appar- 
ently inconsistent with it, it must be confessed that the prob- 
abilities of its general correctness greatly outweigh the 
probabilities that it is not correct. 
But it is one thing for a general theory to be correct, and 
quite another to assert that all the apparent inferences from 
that theory must of necessity be correct. 
Let us now briefly examine the common assertion that if 
the workings of nature are always consistent, man must of 
necessity have descended through the lower animals. 
That a healthy reaction against inordinate haste to assume 
as proved the statement that man must have descended from 
ape-like animals has set in is one of the favorable signs of LAWS OF DEVELOPMENT. 
95 
the times. If we are to proclaim such an origin, let it be 
from proper evidence, and not by jumping to a conclusion 
from a limited number of specimens. According to Virchow, 
as above quoted, the latest geological and paleontological 
evidence seems to point away from rather than towards 
proof of man’s animal extraction. 
Narrowed down, the question at issue is, Are the laws 
relating to the origin and development of man in any way 
different from those pertaining to the origin and development 
of the rest of the animal creation? or, Was the way or 
method of man’s creation in any way different from that by 
which other animals were originally produced? 
The writer does not presume to assert that man was pro- 
duced by an exceptional method ; but he does assert that the 
contrary has not been shown ; and some facts would seem to 
indicate that the laws relating to the production of man may 
possibly have been different from those which were most 
active in the origin and development of other animals. 
Huxley pertinently remarks in regard to his own opinions : 
"We scientific men get an awkward habit —no, I won’t call 
it that, for it is a valuable habit —of reasoning, so that we 
believe nothing unless there is evidence for it; and we have 
a way of looking upon belief which is not based upon evi- 
dence not only as illogical but as immoral.” 
But the particular point to which attention will be first 
called is not so much the question of actual fact concerning 
the line of man’s descent as the dogmatic style of argument 
favored by some radical advocates of the theory of man’s 
descent from pithecoid ancestors. These dogmatic assertions 
are repeated, notwithstanding the fact that such a competent 
anthropologist as Quatrefages says that certain changes in 
the skulls of men and apes as they go from youth to adult 96 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
life show that man could not have descended from a pith- 
ecoid ancestor. 
In the "Contemporary Review” for March, 1883, Rev. 
George Edmundson writes as follows: " Popular scientific 
lecturers and writers have acquired in these days a very 
unpleasant habit of dogmatism. They assume an air of 
infallibility, and express in no measured language their mean 
opinion of those who do not swallow a new-fangled doctrine, 
however unpalatable or distasteful, without making one wry 
face. Science is declared to be the unerring guide to all 
truth and its teachings. Well, 'New professor is but old 
prophet writ large.’ Not such is the spirit of truly great 
discoverers and thinkers, men of the stamp of Newton and 
of Darwin : such men are always modest and reserved in 
their assertions; but the mantle of the master does not 
always descend upon the disciple.” 
Dr. Lionel Beale, several years since also noticed the 
tendency to disparage the intelligence of disbelievers in 
certain theories, and writes (pp. 103, 104, "Matter of 
Life ” ) : " If a physical writer should be in any doubt about 
gaining the desired number of converts to his views, and 
should feel a little misgiving lest some of his readers might 
not be inclined to accept the conclusions upon which he de- 
sired they should rely, it would be easy for him to add to his 
arguments a little literary terrorism. He might remark with 
effect, that, ' an argument like the above must, indeed, be 
convincing to any one who possesses any mind at all. He 
who hesitated to accept such a demonstration would thereby 
prove himself to be foolish, or savage, or both; ’ and so 
forth, the metaphors being varied from time to time to suit 
the circumstances of each particular case.” 
Even so eminent a naturalist and scholar as Haeckel, a LITERARY TERRORISM. 
97 
man who ought to be above all attempts at intellectual or 
literary terrorism, is moved to say (p. 332, "History of Crea- 
tion,” vol. 2) : "The recognition of the theory of development 
and the monistic philosophy based upon it forms the best 
criterion for the degree of man’s mental development.” On 
the contrary, it may be confidently asserted that there is now 
a large proportion of partial students of natural history who 
accept so-called scientific statements which they cannot com- 
prehend, in a way quite analogous to what obtained during 
the middle ages, when men accepted theological dogmas they 
could not comprehend; and their fears of the social conse- 
quences from rejection of scientific dogmas are as real 
though of a somewhat different kind. Hence you will fre- 
quently hear men who confess they never read a page from 
the writings of Darwin, Lamarck, or Hseckel say, "Well, it 
really seems that the evolutionists have proved their case ; for 
nearly all intelligent scientific men have accepted the doc- 
trines of evolution.” 
However, there are several rational examples of men in 
high position who indorse Darwin in the main, and honestly 
state their positions, and also as honestly state that part of 
Darwin’s hypothesis has not been proved, and in fact may 
be incapable of proof in our present state of knowledge. 
Among such authors may be mentioned Darwin himself 
and Huxley. They certainly have done much to help men 
in important lines of investigation. 
But we meet two classes of evolutionists : the one recog- 
nizes an intelligent power behind and directing all the phe- 
nomena of evolution; while the other can see only a blind 
and unintelligent force directing nature’s laws, but concern- 
ing the nature of which force we are and must be in total 
ignorance. This last class is apt to be the most positive in 98 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
their assertions that their propositions must inevitably prove 
correct. 
But the constant repetition by the atheistic that certain 
supposed ways of working by the Creator are not scientific, 
and that those who do not assent to those assertions are 
either ignorant or illogical, is of questionable taste, to say 
the least. Can such bind the Creator to work just in their 
own way or not at all ? Who is the author of the very laws 
of nature? 
We grant that if the Deity in creating man has chosen to 
work upon the Darwinian or Lamarckian plan He has the 
power and right to do so, just as well as upon some other 
plan. 
The simple question at issue is one of fact, viz., has He 
done so? 
All statements that He must have done so, and that it 
would be unscientific to suppose He could do any other way, 
are the merest non-sequiturs, and the pretence that science 
has thrown any decisive light on the way life first came into 
existence is the boldest quackery, as all careful students of 
facts concerning life’s origin well know. If the rocks show 
that creation came about in a certain way, bring out the 
facts. Facts, and not unsupported theories, are what we 
want. 
Huxley has well described what should be understood by 
scientific reasoning; and it is but just to say that, while all 
proper deference should be paid to scientific statements, there 
is as much real scientific cant as there is religious cant. 
On p. 57, "Origin of Species,” Huxley writes as follows: 
"You have all heard it repeated, I dare say, that men of 
science work by means of induction and deduction, and that 
by the help of these operations, they, in a sort of sense, SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS. 
99 
wring from nature certain other things, which are called 
natural laws, and causes, and that out of these, by some 
cunning skill of their own, they build up hypotheses and 
theories. And it is imagined by many that the operations 
of the common mind can be by no means compared with 
these processes, and that they have to be acquired by a sort 
of special apprenticeship to the craft. To hear all these large 
words, you would think that the mind of a man of science 
must be constituted differently from that of his fellow-men; 
but if you will not be frightened by terms you will discover 
that you are quite wrong, and that all these terrible apparatus 
are being used by yourselves every day and every hour of 
your lives.” 
" Probably there is not one here to-night who has not in 
the course of the day had occasion to set in motion a complex 
train of reasoning, of the very same kind, though differing 
of course in degree, as that which a scientific man goes 
through in tracing the causes of natural phenomena.” 
In another place he says (pp. 54, 55) : "I must dwell a 
little on tliis point, for I wish you to leave this room with 
a very clear conviction that scientific investigation is not, as 
many people seem to suppose, some kind of modern black- 
art. I say that you might easily gather this impression from 
the manner in which many persons speak of scientific inquiry, 
or talk about inductive and deductive philosophy, or the 
principles of the' Baconian philosophy.’ I do protest that, 
of the vast number of cants in this world, there are none, to 
my mind, so contemptible as the pseudo-scientific cant which 
is talked about the ' Baconian philosophy.’” 
As Huxley further explains, if you buy an apple that is 
hard and green, and you find it sour, and then buy another 
hard and green, and find the same result, you suspect that 100 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
all hard and green apples may be sour. This is inductive 
reasoning. Does not any farmer’s boy know enough to reason 
in this way? But suppose he should afterwards find apples 
that were hard and green which were not sour, then he would 
say that the conclusions he drew from the first two apples 
were wrong in certain cases, and he would also see that his 
first deduction was wrong, or at least that his rule was not 
of universal application. The great trouble with present 
scientific men is that they are inclined to go too fast, and 
draw their conclusions from too few facts. And this is 
especially true in regard to theories claimed to result from 
the teachings of geology. 
On p. 38, "Origin of Species,” Huxley writes, concerning 
the amount of our geological knowledge, as follows : " Under 
these circumstances it follows that, even with reference to 
that kind of imperfect information which we can possess, it 
is only about the ten-thousandth part of the accessible parts 
of the earth that has been examined properly. Therefore, 
it is with justice that the most thoughtful of those who are 
concerned in these inquiries insist continually upon the im- 
perfection of the geological record; for, I repeat, it is ab- 
solutely necessary, from the nature of things, that that record 
should be of the most fragmentary and imperfect character. 
Unfortunately this circumstance has been constantly for- 
gotten. Men of science, like young colts in a fresh pasture, 
are apt to be exhilarated on being turned into a new field of 
inquiry, and to go off at a hand-gallop, in total disregard of 
hedges and ditches, losing sisrht of the real limitation of their 
O 7 o o 
inquiries, and to forget the extreme imperfection of what is 
really known. Geologists have imagined that they could 
tell us what was going on at all parts of the earth’s surface 
during a given epoch ; they have talked of this deposit SCIENTIFIC REASONING. 
101 
being contemporaneous with that deposit, until, from our 
little local histories of the changes at limited spots of the 
earth’s surface, they have constructed a universal history of 
the globe as full of wonders and portents as any other story 
of antiquity.” 
This is the candid testimony of a strictly scientific man ; 
for in his writings I have never seen any intimation that he 
believes in any supernatural revelation. His book of revela- 
tion consists of science and its teachings. 
The human intellect is a wondrously complicated piece of 
machinery, and men equally intelligent and equally learned 
differ in their conclusions when the same facts are placed 
before them. Especially is this true in matters where truth 
must be definite and cannot contradict itself. One would 
naturally suppose that scientific reasoning from the same data 
would invariably lead to the same conclusions ; but the fact 
is quite the reverse. Especially is this so in regard to the 
matter of our previous inquiry, " Whence is life?” And like 
differences arise concerning the other question which we 
now have under consideration, viz., given life already orig- 
inated, how has it been developed into the living creatures 
we now see around us ? 
When examining this question, certain evidence will weigh 
heavily in one mind, and the same evidence be considered 
very light by another mind. 
When searching for scientific truth all agree that we 
ought to lay aside all prejudice, and come with the most 
sincere desire to ascertain just what the exact truth is ; and 
it is of no consequence, so far as actual truth is concerned, 
whether one man believes a fact to be truth or not: truth 
is always truth; and no man’s opinion can alter an actual 
fact. 102 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
But, when we try to philosophize about truths which are, 
in a measure, concealed, the opinions of intelligent men who 
have investigated these lines of truth should have due weight 
in shaping our opinions. 
This is especially true respecting certain statements, which, 
from their very nature, must be hard to comprehend; for we 
should bear in mind, in regard to many assertions concerning 
the origin and development of life, that, with our present 
knowdedge, we cannot with certainty tell whether they are 
based on truth or not, though we well know that they must 
be either true or false. 
I cannot better illustrate this than by comparing the opin- 
ions of two learned naturalists, Louis Agassiz and Ernst 
Haeckel, in regard to the origin of species. Agassiz came 
to the investigation of this question with a great reverence 
for the Creator of all things, whom he believed to be an 
Almighty Intelligence. Haeckel comes to the subject from 
an exactly opposite stand point. 
However, when we attempt to compare the opposite posi- 
tions taken in their published works in regard to the origin 
of species, we should bear in mind that the " Classification of 
Species,” by Agassiz, was written before the publication of 
Darwin’s " Origin of Species ; ” and if Agassiz had had the 
benefit of Darwin’s investigations previous to writing his 
" Classification ” doubtless he would have written differently 
in several respects. 
One test of the clearness with which any debater sees his 
conclusion may be observed in his manner of carrying on 
the discussion. The man (other things being equal) most 
cloudy in his appreciation of the exact truth is most likely to 
lose his temper in the discussion, and perhaps accuse his 
opponent with not properly treating the subject, or of being DISCUSSIONS. 
103 
ignorant and lacking intelligence. Above all, when discuss- 
ing a subject concerning which neither knows with certainty 
what the truth is, this bitterness is likely to be manifested. 
Cloudiness of perception has been the fruitful source of 
religious persecution. Because religious bigots could not 
demonstrate their statements to be true, and because their 
declarations were not received for truth without demonstra- 
tion, the fagot and the Inquisition have been brought into 
requisition. Let us lay it down as a general rule in scien- 
tific as well as in religious discussions that the party who 
sees most clearly the truth will be most tolerant of the mis- 
takes of opponents, especially when he has reason to believe 
these mistakes are honest ones. Because of his confidence 
in what he believes to be true he will have additional con- 
fidence that he can make others see the truth, and thus can 
afford to wait till time shall make the facts plain. 
I propose to quote somewhat from the writings of various 
authors, that the reader may get a clear idea of the wide 
divergence of conclusions at which they arrive, while each 
has the same facts from which to draw his conclusions. 
All scientific investigations, however, should be based on 
the rejection of all hypotheses that apparently contradict 
common-sense until such hypotheses are proved true be- 
yond reasonable doubt. 
Men naturally love new views, and if these views tend to 
undermine long-settled convictions, the charm is all the 
greater, with a large proportion of studious men. It must 
be admitted, however, that some (through previous habits of 
thought) hold on to antiquated ideas, when it would be 
much better if they would open their minds to receive new 
views of truth. 
Dr. Haeckel states the radical evolutionary position as 104 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
follows (vol. 2, "History of Creation,” p. 278) : "The most 
ancient ancestors of man, as of all other organisms, were liv- 
ing creatures of the simplest kind imaginable, organisms 
without organs, like the still living monera. They consisted 
of simple, homogeneous, structureless and formless little 
lumps of mucus, or albuminous matter (protoplasm), like 
the still living Protamoeba primitiva.” " The form value 
of these most ancient ancestors of man was not even equal to 
that of a cell, but merely that of a cytod, for, as in the case 
of all monera, the little lump of protoplasm did not as yet 
possess a cell-kernel. The first of these monera originated 
in the beginning of the Laurentian period, by spontaneous 
generation, or archigony, out of so-called ' inorganic com- 
binations,’ namely, out of simple combinations of carbon, 
oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen.” 
"The assumption of this spontaneous generation, that is, 
of a mechanical origin of the first organisms from inorganic 
matter, has been proved, in our thirteenth chapter, to be a 
necessary hypothesis.” 
The way Hseckel proves this is shown by the following 
extract from vol. I, " History of Creation,” pp. 347, 348 : 
" The origin of the first monera by spontaneous genera- 
tion appears to us as a simple and necessary event in the 
process of the development of the earth. We admit that 
this process, as long as it is not directly observed or re- 
peated by experiment, remains a pure hypothesis. 
"But I must again say that this hypothesis is indispensa- 
ble for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous 
history of the creation, that it has absolutely nothing forced 
or miraculous about it, and that certainly it can never be 
positively refuted.” 
But we are not yet through our difficulties. If we admit 105 
HiECKEL’S THEOEY. 
that probably the origin of all life came through spontaneous 
generation of monera, how many of these monera were at 
first so generated? Did all life descend from one single 
original microscopic speck, that is from one single moner? 
To make Hasckel’s theory consistent, it seems to me that 
we must presume that all living beings are either descended 
from one single original moner, or else suppose that mo- 
nera may still be spontaneously generated. 
The gist of his argument is this : that this spontaneous 
generation hypothesis " can never be positively refuted,” and 
does not necessitate anything miraculous about creation, and, 
notwithstanding there never has been any proof of its ex- 
istence either by experiment or observation, yet, as the 
hypothesis seems perfectly consistent, and cannot be " posi- 
tively refuted,” it should be received and considered to be 
true. Here the doctor completely begs the question when 
he assumes that the creation was non-miraculous; for the 
question whether it was or was not miraculous contains the 
gist of the whole matter in dispute. If he was possessed of 
infinite knowledge, and was in every way infallible, his 
authority would constitute a final answer to the question. 
But, being of a sceptical turn of mind, I am led to ask, what 
does this announcement prove, according to his own state- 
ments ? Is it not clearly this, viz. : that it is necessary to 
assume that life came through spontaneous generation, or 
his doctrine that life and its development can be accounted 
for through non-purposive causes cannot stand ? " Spon- 
taneous generation” is a thing that no man ever saw (as 
Hasckel himself admits), and, according to the most careful 
scientific tests, has no present existence, and, in so far as we 
know, the laws of nature have not changed since they were 
first instituted, and there seems to be no good reason to be- 106 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
lieve that " spontaneous generation ” ever took place. Then 
would not one naturally infer that he has built his mechani- 
cal or chemical theory of the origin of life upon a foundation 
which probably never had an existence ? 
He seems to prophesy, as Huxley expresses it, "back- 
wards,” and somewhat as Moses did when he wrote, "In the 
beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” 
But his statement is varied to suit the advanced knowl- 
edge of present times. Instead of being simply, "in the be- 
ginning,” it is, "in the beginning of the Laurentian period” 
the ancestors of men were not created, but spontaneously 
generated. 
He does not attempt to tell us how long ago this took 
place, but we infer from other statements that the Laurentian 
period must have been since the earth became cool enough 
to condense the hot mist, or steam that once enveloped the 
earth, into water. We accept this supposition about the 
temperature of the earth before animal or plant life could 
exist, inasmuch as it was stated by Thales, six hundred years 
before Christ, that no animal life could exist without water, 
and that life came from water : and a statement which has 
gone so many years without being successfully contradicted 
must be supposed to be true. But suppose it should be 
shown that it is highly probable that life existed on the earth 
long ages before the " beginning of the Laurentian period,” 
how will that comport with the positive assertion that the 
"most ancient ancestors of man as of all other organisms” 
" originated in the beginning of the Laurentian period ” ? 
Prof. Fiske, in vol. 2, p. 39, "Cosmic Philosophy,” 
says : " It is now generally admitted that even the Laurentian 
strata are modern compared with the beginnings of life upon 
our globe.” DU BOIS REYMOND. 
107 
In reference to an address of Du Bois Reymond, at 
Leipzig, in 1873, Haeckel says, p. xx., "Evolution of Man” : 
" This eloquent address, the source of such triumph to the 
opponents of the theory of evolution, the cause of such pain 
to all friends of intellectual advance, is essentially a great 
denial of the history of evolution.” In that address Du 
Bois Reymond asserts, concerning the origin of sensation and 
consciousness, " We shall never know that 'lgnorabimus.’ ” 
On p. xxi. he writes : "With this 'lgnorabimus ’ the Berlin 
School of Biology tries to stop science in its advance along 
the paths of evolution. This seemingly humble but really 
audacious ' Ignorabimus ’ is the ' Ignoratis ’ of the infallible 
Vatican and of the 'Black International’ which it leads; 
that mischievous host against which the modern civilized 
state has now at last begun in earnest ' the struggle for 
culture.’ ” 
It is difficult to see just what the infallible "Vatican” has 
to do with this fact in natural science. Either Haeckel is 
right, or he is wrong, in his assumptions concerning the 
origin and development of life and consciousness, and 
whether he is right or wrong must be decided by the teach- 
ings of natural scieiice. 
A scientific fact cannot be changed by scientists, or by 
statements of pope, cardinal, bishop, or any other eccle- 
siastic. Facts in natural history cannot be altered; but 
there evidently is a limit somewhere to our knowledge, and 
intelligent men differ as to where this line is to be drawn. 
If Du Bois Reymond thinks we shall never understand the 
origin of consciousness, and Mr. Haeckel thinks we shall 
understand this origin, let Haeckel show plainly the how of the 
existence of this origin, and we will believe in him. But run- 
ning away from the question to anathematize pope, cardinals 108 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
and churches cannot help us to the desired information. So, 
of the origin of life, if Eheckel can demonstrate that his order 
in creation is correct, or the fact that original " spontaneous 
generation ” took place, let him do so, and then we must 
believe in him, nolens volens. 
But if Du Bois Reymond differs from him in opinion 
respecting what are actual facts in natural history, or thinks 
we can never know for a certainty what are the actual facts 
in certain phases of the development of life and intelligence, 
why, on that account, should the Berlin physiologist and the 
Berlin School of Biology be accused of working to sustain, 
or in harmony with the " Black International,” whatever 
that may mean? 
Much has been written about man’s place in nature, and 
the attempt has been made to show that man has had, and 
still continues to have, false opinions concerning the impor- 
tance of the position he holds in nature, and the tendency of 
the writings of several of the most prominent naturalists has 
been to show that man has no right to believe he is a being 
o O 
" destined for eternity ” or to an immortal existence. They 
further intimate that this supposition, or rather " delusion,” 
about immortality, in which man indulges, warps his reason- 
ing when considering facts concerning his origin. Also that 
his belief in immortality makes him think he occupies a 
radically different sphere from that occupied by other 
animals, and this gives him false and altogether too exalted 
ideas of his actual place in nature. 
But, query : If a belief in immortality warps his reasoning 
powers in one way, will not the non-belief in immortality warp 
the reasoning powers in another way ? Is it possible that be- 
lief in oneway will warp a sane man’s mind in one direction, and 
that non-belief may not warp his mind in another direction ? LAMARCK AND DARWIN. 
109 
On reading Hreckel further, we find another astonishing 
truth (provided it is truth) stated as follows : In vol. 2, 
"History of Creation,” p. 264, he writes : "Just as the geo- 
centric conception of the universe namely, the false opinion 
that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that all its 
other portions revolved around the earth was overthrown 
by the system of the universe established by Copernicus and 
his followers, so the anthropocentric conception of the 
universe the vain delusion that man is the centre of 
terrestrial nature, and that its whole aim is merely to serve 
him is overthrown by the application (attempted long since 
by Lamarck) of the theory of descent to man. As Coper- 
nicus’ system of the universe was mechanically established 
by Newton’s theory of gravitation, we see Lamarck’s theory 
of descent attain its causal establishment by Darwin’s theory 
of selection.” 
But if it shall be shown that Lamarck’s theories are 
merely suppositions, and far from being demonstrated, and 
that some parts of Darwin’s hypotheses are as yet far from 
receiving anything like proof; and if we shall find that in 
our present state of knowledge it is actually impossible to 
attain to proof of the correctness of these assumptions con- 
cerning the descent of man, will not this indicate that the 
assertions of the doctor are too positive? 
Let us see what Huxley (who is one of the strongest 
supporters of Darwin’s views) says of the principal part of 
Lamarck’s hypothesis. In "Origin of Species” (p. 144), 
he says: "Take the Lamarckian hypothesis, for example. 
Lamarck was a great naturalist, and, to a certain extent, went 
the right way to work. He argued from what was un- 
doubtedly a true cause of some of the phenomena of organic 
nature. He said it is a matter of experience that an animal THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
may be modified more or less in consequence of its desires 
and consequent actions. Thus, if a man exercise himself 
as a blacksmith his arras will become strong and muscular; 
such organic modification is a result of this particular action 
and exercise. Lamarck thought that by a very simple sup- 
position based on this truth he could explain the origin of 
the various animal species; he said, for example, that the 
short-legged birds, which live on fish, had been converted 
into the long-legged waders by desiring to get the fish with- 
out wetting their feet, and so stretching their legs more and 
more, through successive generations. If Lamarck could 
have shown experimentally that even races of animals could 
be produced in this way, there might have been some ground 
for his speculations. But he could show nothing of the 
kind, and his hypothesis has pretty well dropped into oblivion, 
as it deserved to do.” 
Now, if, on further investigation, it should appear that parts 
of Darwin’s theory of the descent of man may possibly be- 
long alongside of Lamarck’s, which "dropped into oblivion, 
as it deserved to do,” what will become of the doctor’s demon- 
stration founded upon Darwin’s hypothesis ? 
Haeckel considers Lamarck to be the real founder of 
Darwin’s theory, for (on p. 85, vol. 1, "Evolution of Man,”) 
he says : " These are the principal outlines of the theory of 
Lamarck, now called the theory of descent or transmutation, 
and to which, fifty years later, attention was again called by 
Darwin, who firmly supported it with new proofs. Lamarck, 
therefore, is the real founder of this theory of descent or 
transmutation, and it is a mistake to attribute its origin to 
Darwin. Lamarck was the first to formulate the scientific 
theory of the natural origin of all organisms including man, 
and at the same time to draw the two ultimate inferences MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE. 
from this theory; firstly, the doctrine of the origin of the 
most ancient organisms through spontaneous generation ; and, 
secondly, the descent of man from the mammal most closely 
resembling man, the ape.” 
But let us see how Mr. Huxley agrees with Haeckel upon 
this point. Huxley (in "Origin of Species,” p. 144) says : 
" I said in an earlier lecture that there are hypotheses and 
hypotheses, and when people tell you that Mr. Darwin’s 
strongly-based hypothesis is nothing but a mere modification 
of Lamarck’s, you will know what to think of their capacity 
for forming a judgment on this subject.” 
I suppose that most men who give careful attention to this 
subject at once perceive that the moving forces in Lamarck’s 
and Darwin’s theories come from radically different points. 
Lamarck’s initiatory impulses towards development come 
from wants within the organism ; while the modifying powers, 
according to Darwin’s theory, generally come from without, 
or through the environments. 
But, in trying to fix the proper sphere of man in the 
animal creation, Haeckel looks at him as a mere animal, and 
would dissect him as he would a frog or a horse, simply to 
find out his physiological, morphological, and anatomical 
structure, regardless of any difference in mental structure 
between man and other animal existences. In so far as he 
confines himself to the mere physical structure to the exclu- 
sion of all mental characteristics, he may be fair if he states 
that that is all he is looking for, and providing he does not 
deny that he ought to take into consideration the mental 
characteristics when he attempts to fix man’s full station. 
But he cannot find man’s full sphere without taking into 
consideration his peculiar mental qualities as distinguished 
from those of the brutes. Haeckel has told us that we must, 112 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
for the time being, divest ourselves of all our " deep-rooted 
prejudices” which we have imbibed in our youth, and leave 
out of consideration all our notions respecting the " spiritual 
sicfe” of our natures, if we would arrive at the genuine truth 
respecting our descent. But if we would arrive at the 
genuine truth of our inheritance, we must take into con- 
sideration all of the facts bearing on the case ; and we 
shall be more liable to arrive at false conclusions if we try 
to restrict the field of observation. Mental as well as physical 
characteristics are inherited; and my point is, that if there 
is an essential difference in the mental constitutions of men 
and the brutes, or a difference so great and marked as to 
make it appear evident that one mental constitution could 
not be inherited or developed from the preceding one, then 
this very fact would seem to show that the physical side, so 
intimately connected with the mental, could not be inherited 
from any ape-like animal. 
A mere naturalist examining man in physical structure 
only, as he would a bug or a bee, does not take into con- 
sideration the whole man. 113 
MAN’S RANK IN NATURE. 
CHAPTER V. 
MAN IN HIS COMPOUND NATURE. 
Man is a compound animal, having mind as well as body. 
If it is of no consequence whether there is a radical difference 
between men and brutes in their mental structures, then to 
compare them only anatomically or physiologically is fair. 
But there appears to be a radical mental difference, and 
hence it is not fair to compare men with mere animals by 
the physiological organization alone, and by such comparison 
attempt to fix man’s real rank in nature, for nature comprises 
the mental as well as physical organization. It may be said 
that beasts have mental traits in many respects like men, 
granted; but it is not granted in the highest and most im- 
portant respect. True, the beasts have loves and hatreds, 
joys and sorrows, somewhat analogous to those of men; but 
their sorrows differ from men in this, that the very elements 
which add depth and intensity to the pangs of sorrow in men 
arise from their reflective faculties, and their feelings of joy 
are often most active in anticipation of some future good. 
There is, however, a disposition to be faithful in some beasts, 
and some will defend their acquired possessions like men. 
Dogs lament the loss of friends, as instances of watching the 
graves of their masters will show. 
Animals have memory; and the growth and decay of their 
bodies areas regular as with men. We may be asked who 
knows that the lives of the brutes are not coexistent with 
those of men? If man has a soul, who knows that brutes 114 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
have no souls? In what does man differ from brutes except 
in the degree of intelligence? This question is a fair one. 
But we know what men desire and think about and talk 
about. We know they have hopes and fears concerning a 
future life, and these hopes and fears seem to be inborn ; 
but we have no evidence that brutes have the least idea of 
any future or spiritual existence; and we have absolutely no 
evidence that they have the least apprehension of anything 
pertaining to a spiritual life. But we do know that in many 
intelligent men one of the very strongest of all desires 
centres in the hope of eternal life, or of a conscious existence 
after death. Many have suffered death in its most repulsive 
forms rather than speak one word indicating a doubt of the 
realities of a spiritual existence. 
If we call these hopes and fears superstitious, that 
does not alter the fact of their existence, nor does it 
explain how these hopes and fears came to exist. Notwith- 
standing the high authority claimed in favor of the ghost 
theory, or that the belief in another or spiritual self originally 
came from dreams, that does not satisfactorily explain how 
men originally came to believe that they possess an immortal 
self. 
Peschel, in regard to another radical difference, says 
(p. 5, " Races of Men ”) : "We cannot conclude these obser- 
vations without answering the accusation, which may per- 
haps be silently made, that we leave out of sight the intel- 
lectual functions of mankind. We at once repeat what 
Darwin has already said, that the motions of conscience as 
connected with repentance, and the feelings of duty, are the 
most important differences which separate us from the ani- 
mal ; that in the latter there is no capability of solving a 
mathematical problem, or of admiring a landscape painting, MR. WALLACE. 
115 
or a manifestation of power. Neither can any reflection take 
place respecting the correlation of phenomena, and still less 
as to the hypothesis of a First Cause or a Divine Will.” 
Hear Mr. Wallace, a naturalist of no mean order, who 
was getting ready to publish his own theory of development 
when, in 1859, Darwin hurried up the publication of his 
book (quoted by Mivart, p. 301): "Mr. Wallace ob- 
serves, that on his view man is to be placed 'apart,’ as not 
only the head and culminating point of the grand series of 
organic nature, but as in some degree a new and distinct 
order of being.” Also, on p, 302, Mivart has the follow- 
ing : "At length, however, there came into existence a 
being in whom that subtle force we term mind became of 
greater importance than his mere bodily structure. Though 
with a naked and unprotected body, this gave him clothing 
against the varying inclemencies of the seasons. Though 
unable to compete with the deer in swiftness, or with the 
wild bull in strength, this gave him weapons with which to 
capture or ovei’come both. Though less capable than most 
other animals of living on the herbs and the fruits that 
unaided Nature supplies, this wonderful faculty taught him 
to govern and direct Nature to his own benefit, and make her 
produce food for him when and where he pleased. From 
the moment when the first skin was used as a covering; 
when the first rude spear was formed to assist in the chase; 
when fire was first used to cook his food; when the first seed 
was sown, or shoot planted, a grand revolution was effected 
in Nature, a revolution which in all the previous ages of the 
earth’s history had had no parallel; for a being had arisen 
who was no longer necessarily subject to change with the 
changing universe, a being who was in some degree superior 
to Nature, inasmuch as he knew how to control and regulate 116 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
her action, and could keep himself in harmony with her, not 
by a change in body but by an advance in mind.” 
Physical science probably can never prove or disprove 
(in a sense of actual demonstration) the reality or non-reality 
of the existence of a soul either in or separate from the body. 
What our consciousness witnesses, reason and analogy must 
be brought into requisition if we would balance these proba- 
bilities. 
But the objection is urged that speculations concerning 
our spiritual natures cannot be considered scientific, because 
neither the positive nor the negative side of the question can 
be demonstrable ; yet these same objectors may speculate 
concerning the character or nature of the inhabitants of the 
planets, or concerning the nebular hypothesis, and call such 
speculations scientific. 
Hseckel (in chap. 22, "Hist, of Creation”) gives descrip- 
tions of manlike apes, and shows how similar they are to men 
in several respects. But what does this amount to upon the 
point under consideration until he can show psychological 
as well as physical similarities ? While he tries to show that 
man holds a certain relationship to the apes he as clearly 
states that man could not possibly have descended from any 
of the present races of apes, and that even the fossil remains 
of the immediate ancestors of man have not yet been dis- 
covered. 
He says (p. 277, vol. 2, "Hist, of Creation”) : "I must here 
also point out what in fact is self-evident, that not one of all 
the still living apes, and consequently not one of the so-called 
Manlike Apes, can be the progenitor of the Human Race. 
This opinion, in fact, has never been maintained by thought- 
ful adherents of the Theory of Descent, but it has been 
assigned to them by their thoughtless opponents. The Ape- EARLIEST MEN. 
117 
like progenitors of the Human Race are long since extinct. 
We may possibly still find their fossil bones in the tertiary 
rocks of southern Asia or Africa. In any case, they will, 
in the zoological system, have to be classed in the group of 
tail-less narrow-nosed Apes.” 
Even the very bones of the supposed ancestors, which 
might show the connecting link between man and the sup- 
posed ancestral race have never been found, and this is the 
very thing needed to furnish anything like proof of the 
correctness of his supposed line of descent. There is no 
geological evidence to show that any ape-like race of animals 
from which man could have descended existed prior to or 
since man’s first existence. There is evidence of man’s 
very early existence, but no definite evidence has been pro- 
duced that any ape-men, from which man might have de- 
scended, have existed during the whole records of time. 
How then can any one positively assert that man has de- 
scended from apes when it cannot be shown that ape-men 
existed before or since the earliest men? If such ape-men 
existed earlier than or even during the earliest periods of 
man’s existence, why should we not be able to find such a 
fossil-monkey or ape-man skull as well as fossil men’s 
skulls ? 
Some kinds of apes, or ape-like animals, existed very far 
back in the history of the earth. A. 11. Wallace, who in gen- 
eral supports Darwin’s Theory of Descent, writes (" Popu- 
lar Science Monthly” for Nov., 1876, p. 64) : "But so far 
back as the miocene deposits of Europe, we find the remains 
of apes allied to these various forms, and especially the gib- 
bons ; so that in all probability the special line of variation 
which led up to men branched off at a still earlier period.” 
This agrees with the statement of Darwin; but neither 118 
THE DEVELOPMENT OE LIFE. 
Wallace nor Darwin intimates that he thinks man could pos- 
sibly have descended from any of the ape-like animals which 
existed in the miocene periods. 
Peschel (pp. 4, 5, "Races of Man”) says : "It is only a 
popular misapprehension, that, by the theory of transmuta- 
tion of species, man is supposed to be descended from one 
of the four highest species of apes. Neither Darwin nor 
any of his adherents ever asserted anything of the sort, 
but, on the contrary, they maintain that the ancestors of 
mankind branched off, in the first or earliest part of the 
tertiary period, from species of the Catarrhine group long 
since extinct.” 
But that the reader may see what Darwin says concern- 
ing the origin of man, I will quote extracts from Darwin, 
pp. 155-157, "Descent of Man.” 
On the birthplace and antiquity of man: "We are nat- 
urally led to inquire, where was the birthplace of man at 
that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from 
the Catarrhine stock ? The fact that they belonged to this 
stock clearly shows that they inhabited the Old World, but 
not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from 
the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region 
of the world the living mammals are closely related to the 
extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable 
that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely 
allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two 
species are now man’s nearest allies, it is somewhat more 
probable that our early progenitors lived on the African 
continent than elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on 
this subject; for two or three anthropomorphous apes, one 
the Dryopithecus of Lartet, nearly as large as a man, and 
closely allied to Hylohates, existed in Europe during the DARWIN’S THEORY. 
119 
Miocene age ; and since so remote a period the earth has 
certainly undergone many great revolutions, and there has 
been ample time for migration on the largest scale.” 
" At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, 
when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably in- 
habited a hot country; a circumstance favorable for the 
frugiferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he sub- 
sisted. We are far from knowing how long ago it was 
when man first diverged from the Catarrhine stock, but it 
may have occurred at an epoch as remote as the Eocene 
period; for that the higher apes had diverged from the lower 
apes as early as the Upper Miocene period is shown by the 
existence of the Dryopithecus.” 
" The great break in the organic chain between man and 
his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any ex- 
tinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave 
objection to the belief that man is descended from some 
lower form; but this objection will not appear of much 
weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the 
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all 
parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, 
others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and 
its nearest allies, —between the Tarsius and the other Lemuri- 
dse, between the elephant, and in a more striking manner 
between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mam- 
mals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of 
related forms which have become extinct. At some future 
period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the 
civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and 
replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the 
same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Prof. Schaaff- 
hausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The 120 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, 
for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, 
as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape 
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro 
or Australian and the gorilla.” 
"With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to 
connect man with his ape-like jwogenitors, no one will lay 
much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyell’s discussion, 
where he shows that in all the vertebrate classes the dis- 
covery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous 
process. Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which 
are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with 
some extinct ape-like creature, have not as yet been searched 
by geologists.” 
Two remarks of Mr. Darwin in the above are especially 
worthy of attention. The first refers to the fact that serious 
breaks in the chain of evidence occur, and he says : " This 
objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from 
general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolu- 
tion.” 
Very true, for, when one becomes a strong believer in the 
general principles of any theory, it is not difficult for his 
imagination to supply all the necessary connections so as to 
make the whole system entirely consistent. If this imagina- 
tion could be considered in the light of evidence, then almost 
any popular theory or system might be rounded out into 
beautiful and symmetrical proportions. 
The second assertion is as follows : " With respect to the 
absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his 
ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact 
who reads Sir C. Lyell’s discussion, where he shows that in 
all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has DARWIN’S THEORY. 
121 
been a very slow and fortuitous process.” Surely so; but 
why, in effect, assume that the evidence which is lacking 
would, if it could be discovered, be favorable to one theory, 
when perhaps by further searching for these missing links 
something might be discovered which would be the very 
reverse of favorable to the theory? 
It is very strange that while man-like apes nearly as 
large as a man existed in Europe during the Miocene age, 
and geological evidence should fully attest yet we 
do not find evidence that these apes were developed upward 
or became of a higher order during the immense time inter- 
vening between the Miocene and Pliocene ages. We may 
talk about the " imperfection of the geological record ” with 
much truth ; and the very fact that it is imperfect should 
make us modest in our assumptions concerning the full pur- 
port of its teachings. But, if man has been developed from 
an ape-like race, why should we not expect to find some 
direct evidence of the former existence of a race from which 
man might have descended as well as find the remains of 
man-like apes which lived long ages before we have any 
evidence that man existed? 
Or, in other words, why should we not find some definite 
geological evidence of the existence of ape-men before we 
assume as an undoubted fact that such a race ever existed ? 
It is also worthy of note that there is a difference of 
opinion between Darwin and Hasckel in regard to the birth- 
place of man. In his map Hgeckel places the supposed 
" Paradise ? ” in Lemuria, a locality now under the waters 
of the Indian Ocean. Darwin did not think the birthplace 
of men could have been on any " oceanic island,” but that 
"it is more probable that our progenitors lived on the 
African continent than elsewhere.” Darwin also thought 122 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
that "when man first lost his hairy covering he probably 
inhabited a hot country.” 
Several questions naturally arise from this last idea. 
First, how does any one know that man ever had a " hairy 
covering ” to lose ? Those who believe in Haeckel’s law of 
biogeny may conclude, from the fact that the human embryo 
for three or four months previous to birth is covered with 
woolly hair, that this is evidence that man’s ancestors once 
had a "hairy covering.” Haeckel says (vol. 2, pp. 206, 
207, "Evolution of Man”) : "During the last three or four 
months before birth the human embryo is usually covered 
by a thick coating of delicate woolly hairs. This embryonic 
wool-covering is often lost during the last weeks of embryonic 
life, and, at any rate, soon after birth, when it is replaced 
by the thinner permanent hair covering.” 
" Occasionally the dark hair is retained for several weeks, 
or even months, after birth. This remarkable woolly cover- 
ing can only be explained as an inheritance from our pri- 
mordial long-haired ancestors, the Apes.” 
Surely this is a very clear explanation; but it lacks one 
important element, viz., proof of the truth of its inference, 
viz., that because the human embryo has a hairy covering 
which it generally loses before birth, therefore its primordial 
ancestors must have had a hairy covering, which their human 
descendants have lost. 
We must infer from the theory of natural selection that 
this loss of the original " hairy covering” (if it ever occurred) 
was of special advantage, for "the survival of the fittest,” or 
the most useful, is its motto. Possibly, in a very hot climate, 
loss of hair might be an advantage. But how about such 
advantage to those who inhabit a very cold climate? Would 
not this " hairy covering ” (which it is supposed they lost) SPIRITUAL NATURES. 
123 
be of immense advantage to men who inhabit a cold climate ? 
According to the foundation principles of " natural selection,” 
why should not a " hairy ” or fur-like covering now grow to 
protect men who need such a covering? 
Is "Nature blundering,” as Lewes expresses it? 
It is said that at the time of birth the young of apes are 
hairless, and that hair is an after-growth. Does not this very 
fact seem to indicate that the development of men and apes 
is in this respect in entirely different directions ? And may 
not this also indicate that this supposed hairy covering never 
existed on the ancestors of men ? 
But we will further consider the probability of the truth 
of this descent theory from diverse points of view. There 
are many things involved, and circumstances to be considered, 
besides those which relate to mere anatomy, morphology, or 
physiology. Before we assume that man is a mere animal, 
and nothing more, it will be well to explain how the belief 
that man has a spiritual nature has become so nearly uni- 
versal. Are these hundreds of millions of intelligent men 
who believe in a spiritual existence all deluded? Certainly 
they must be, if there is no spiritual existence. But before 
we assert dogmatically that all these millions are deluded 
would it not be well to exhibit something in the nature of 
proof that such is the case, rather than depend upon mere 
assertions ? 
Because a thousand men deny that there is any such thing 
as spiritual existence, when, from the very nature of the case, 
they cannot know whether it exists or not, these denials, no 
matter how positively made, are no evidence that spiritual 
existences may not be real entities. We must make certain 
allowances for almost universal convictions when reasoning 
concerning matters, which, from their very nature, must be 124 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
uncertain, or our doctrines will rest upon very insecure 
foundations. It is useless to repeat as applicable to this case 
the fact that the ancients were deceived when thinking that 
the earth stood still, and that the sun revolved around it. 
Conceptions and convictions of a spiritual nature are of a very 
dilferent kind. 
Desires and aspirations after continued existence are in 
the very constitutions of our natures. How came these, and 
how were these desires implanted? Desires for long life are 
one means of securing the continuance of life. When a 
healthy man craves food we naturally infer that such food is 
needed, and also that such craving is one means used by 
nature to indicate what is necessary for continued corporeal 
existence. When we assert the universal and harmonious 
application of nature’s laws shall we overlook these mental 
laws, and say that all mental desires are mere shadows, and 
without any reality behind them? Is life really a complete 
mockery ? 
The apparently inborn conceptions and convictions con- 
cerning man’s spiritual nature are not things which can be 
measured by a mathematical rule, or discovered by micro- 
scope or telescope, for spirit (if it exists) is invisible. Rules 
of reasoning which properly apply to purely material sub- 
stances may not be at all applicable to spiritual matters. 
The materialist denies that spiritual existences are real. 
How does he know this ? To assume that such is the fact is 
begging the question; for he knows not whether spiritual 
existences are real or unreal. 
I place the almost universal convictions of mankind (how- 
ever these convictions may have originated) against any dog- 
matic assertions that these convictions are all delusions; 
and, if they are not delusions, then materialistic doctrines THEORY OF ANALOGIES. 
125 
cannot be true, and man is a compound of physical and 
spiritual existence. 
Certain doctrines concerning man’s descent take for 
granted the assumption that man, outside of his physical or- 
ganization, can have no spiritual nature, and that intelligence 
and life cannot exist separate from a physical system ; but 
until some different kind of evidence is produced to show 
that man may not have a spiritual as well as a physical 
nature, any theory built upon such a negative assumption 
must, of necessity, rest upon uncertain foundations. 
One strange characteristic of many professedly scientific 
reasonings is, that while their authors treat those arguments 
which tend to induce a belief in man’s spiritual nature as 
entirely unscientific unless they are based upon clearly de- 
monstrable facts, yet, when they argue for their own favor- 
ite theories from positions which they have never shown to 
rest upon the rock-bed of truth, they proclaim themselves to 
be the champions of purely scientific methods. 
The theory that man descended from certain man-like 
apes is founded almost entirely upon analogies drawn from 
the production of plants and animals ; and so long as no 
bones of any race from which man could have sprung by 
direct descent have been found, why should we (upon the 
evidence offered) receive the theory as anything beyond an 
hypothesis which future investigation may or may not show 
to have truth for its foundation ? 
This theory of descent appears plausible, and also seems 
to accord with much which we know of the operations of 
nature’s laws. The chief objection which I now raise is 
against the positiveness with which the truth of the theory 
is asserted. There can be no doubt as to how the laws of 
evolution apply in the development of each human being 126 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
from a single cell; nor that the intellectual and moral facul- 
ties which so distinguish the man from the brute are, in 
some sense, the result of progressive development; and 
surely this line of development may be typical of man’s line 
of descent from an original one-celled ancestor, but the 
burden of proof is on the other side. 
Such bones as evolutionists state should belong to the im- 
mediate ancestors of man may yet be found; but when a 
theory so different from what has generally been supposed 
to be true is proposed, something besides analogies should be 
adduced before it should be placed in the region of proved 
facts. 
I am aware that the answer will be that nature always 
acts in a uniform way, and that, if the doctrine of evolution 
in regard to the lower animals is correct, it is only reasonable 
to conclude that the same laws must also apply to the devel- 
opment of man ; and if a lower order of animals can be de- 
veloped into a higher order, then man has probably been 
developed from a lower order. But if, while man is an animal 
he is also something more than animal, then, as before inti- 
mated, another factor comes in to modify our reasonings and 
analogies. But nature does not always work in the same 
direction of development. If she worked universally from 
the lower to a higher state of development, we might assume 
that there could not be any exceptions to the direction of 
developments. But there are very notable exceptions. 
The author of " Cosmic Philosophy,” himself a strong 
evolutionist, states, in a note to pp. 450, 451, vol. 1 : 
" Kowalewsky has discovered some wonderful likenesses 
between the embryonic development of the ascidian and that 
of the amphioxus, or lowest known vertebrate. Of all the 
' missing links,’ the assumed absence of which is so persist- ABERRANT FORMS. 
127 
ently cited by the adherents of the dogma of fixity of species, 
the most important one would here appear to have been 
found; for it is a link which connects the complex and 
highly-evolved vertebrate with a very lowly form which 
passes its natural existence rooted plant-like to the soil, or 
rather to the sea-bottom. The ascidian cannot, indeed, be 
regarded as typifying the direct ancestors of the vertebrata. 
It is a curiously aberrant and degraded form, and its own 
progenitors had doubtless once ' seen better days.’ In its 
embryonic state it possesses a well-marked vertebral column, 
and it behaves in general very much as if it were going to 
grow to something like the amphioxus. But it afterwards falls 
considerably short of this mark. Already in early life its 
vertebras begin to become ' rudimentary ’ or evanescent; 
and when fully matured it stops swimming about after its 
prey, and, striking root in the submarine soil, remains there- 
after standing, with its broad pitcher-like mouth ever in 
readiness to suck down such organisms floating by as may 
serve for its nutriment. That vertebrae should be found in 
the embryo of such an animal is a most interesting and 
striking fact. It would seem to mark the ascidian as a ret- 
rograded off-shoot of those primitive forms on the way 
toward assuming the vertebrate structure, of which the 
more fortunate ones succeeded in leaving as their representa- 
tive the amphioxus.” 
This case shows a decided break in the general lines of 
development; and how many more as striking anomalies 
may exist we have not yet the means of knowing. 
The case of the ascidians used as a " missing link ” seems 
O 
to point in an exactly opposite direction from the general line 
of evolution. 
It much better accords with Plato’s theory of degenera- 128 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
tions running downward than with the theory that devel- 
opment is always upward. Its manner of development also 
seems inconsistent with the quite generally proclaimed theory 
that every vertebrate in its immature condition passes 
through conditions which pertain to all orders of the animal 
creation which are below it. 
Reasoning from analogy, may we not as justly assume 
(for all that has been shown to the contrary) that man may 
have a line of development from ancestral races as different 
from the general line as that which we find in the ascidians ? 
So long as the brain is the organ of the mind, man’s real 
position in nature and the probabilities relating to his line 
of descent cannot be fully and fairly balanced without keep- 
ing prominently in mind his mental structure and the testi- 
mony of his consciousness in regard to his position as a 
moral agent. 
But, we may be asked, if ideas of God, immortality, and 
moral responsibility are innate in man, why not class as 
beasts certain races of men which seem to have no ideas of a 
moral nature or a future life ? 
Upon the question whether such ignorant and degraded 
races do exist, authorities are divided. Some assert posi- 
tively that such races do exist; while others as positively 
assert, that, upon a better or more intimate acquaintance 
with such races, ideas of God and a future life are found to 
exist, and that the reason why certain travellers were unable 
to discover indications of such conception was a want of 
confidence of these savages in these travellers, but that 
when one becomes sufficiently intimate with them to acquire 
their confidence he plainly recognizes evidences of a belief 
in a Supreme Being or beings. But upon the supposition 
that races as degraded as above supposed do really exist, I IDEA OE IMMORTALITY. 
129 
can’t say to what depth of degradation certain races may 
have descended, nor from what height of former intellectual 
and spiritual development they may have fallen ; but surely 
the idea of immortality is implanted in the minds of a ma- 
jority of the people comprising the most intellectual races, 
and if we deny that this idea of immortality is a rational one, 
we must admit that these cultivated and fairly educated 
people have in some way imbibed more irrational notions 
concerning the origin and destiny of our being than such 
most ignorant and degraded races have; for, generally 
speaking, the most enlightened races do believe in man’s 
spiritual nature. 
While reflecting upon the strange positions taken by 
certain men of acknowledged scientific attainments, it has 
seemed tome that the majority of common-sense men, though 
less learned, are more likely to be right on the question of 
man’s destiny than the most learned speculators in the 
physical sciences can be, while leaving out of view the spirit- 
ual side of man’s nature. 
Either we must admit that the prevailing belief of the 
most intelligent and cultivated races concerning God and 
immortality is in its general features probably true, rather 
than the negations or absence of belief of the most igno- 
rant races; or we must admit that such study of things 
pertaining to the unknown conditions of existence as the 
most intelligent and enlightened races have been accustomed 
to give serves to mislead rather than give correct ideas of 
the real facts of the case. 
It is really curious to observe how extremes meet, —as ex- 
emplified in the case of men supposed to be so ignorant and 
degraded that they have no ideas of God or of immortal 
existence, and hence do not apprehend anything relating to 130 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
immortality, and certain learned men who reject doctrines 
implying the existence o*1 God and the immortality of the 
human soul. Whether one believes that these lowest races of 
men are right or wrong concerning a conscious immortal 
existence, in so far as they have any opinions upon the 
subject, the strange coincidence still exists between those 
supposed to be so ignorant as to have no conceptions of a 
Supreme Intelligence, and atheistic writers, who conceive 
that an Omniscient and Supreme Intelligence cannot be in 
existence. 
It would appear to be strange if the most degraded and 
ignorant races and a few of the learned men should be right, 
while the majority of learned men and the great body of men 
comprising the fairly intelligent common people should be 
in the wrong on this question. But it cannot be true that 
study tends to mislead and draw away from rational truth, 
if the student gives proper consideration to all facts which 
ought to be considered. The reason why many become 
atheistic through study is doubtless because they entirely 
disregard facts pertaining to the " spiritual side of man’s 
nature,” and hence while looking at one side they take only 
partial views of the whole field. What then can we expect, 
but that they should have one-sided and contracted views ? 
This, it seems to me is just what we do find. 
Upon this point the sceptic Hume (whom I suppose, no 
one will accuse of lack of intelligence) says in his "Essays,” 
p. 551 : " Though the stupidity of men, barbarous and 
uninstructed, be so great that they may not see a Sovereign 
Author in the more obvious works of nature to which they 
are so much familiarized; yet it scarcely seems possible that 
any one of good understanding should reject that idea, when 
once it is suggested to him.” BELIEF IN OVERRULING POWER. 
131 
Again, he says, p. 552, ibid.: " The universal propensity 
to believe in invisible, intelligent power, if not an original 
instinct, being at least a general attendant of human nature, 
may be considered as a kind of mark or stamp, which the 
Divine Workman has set upon his work ; and nothing surely 
can more dignify mankind than to be thus selected from all 
other pai'ts of the creation, and to bear the image or impres- 
sion of the Creator.” 
" What a noble privilege is it of human reason to attain 
the knowledge of the Supreme Being, and, from the visible 
works of nature, be enabled to infer so sublime a principle 
as its Supreme Creator ! ” " Look out for a people entirely 
destitute of religion; if you find them at all, be assured that 
they are but few degrees removed from brutes.” 
Darwin takes a somewhat different view, as follows, 
p. 12G, "Descent of Man ” : " The ennobling belief in God 
is not universal with man ; and the belief in spiritual agencies 
naturally follows from other mental powers. The moral 
sense perhaps affords the best and highest distinction between 
man and the lower animals.” 
I will now introduce a witness whom even Haeckel will 
not try to discredit, viz., Mr. T. H. Huxley. Mr. Huxley 
has with great ability discussed questions pertaining to the 
origin of species, and candidly states that positive proof that 
one species of animals has changed into another has not yet 
been adduced. 
On p. 141, "Origin of Species,” writing of changes of 
species ; Mr. Huxley says : "For you see, if you have not done 
that you have not strictly fulfilled all the conditions of the 
problem; you have not shown that you can produce by the 
cause assumed all the phenomena which you have in nature. 
Here are the phenomena of hybridism staring you in the 132 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
face, and you cannot say, 'I can, by selective modification, 
produce these same results.’ Now it is admitted on all hands 
that, at present, so far as experiments have gone, it has not 
been found possible to produce this complete physiological 
divergence by selective breeding. I stated this very clearly 
before, and I now refer to the point, because, if it could be 
proved not only that this has not been done, but that it 
cannot be done, if it could be demonstrated that it is im- 
possible to breed selectively, from any stock, a form which 
shall not breed with another produced from the same stock; 
and if we were shown that this must be the necessary and 
inevitable result of all experiments, I hold that Mr. Darwin’s 
hypothesis would be utterly shattered. But has this been 
done ? Or what is really the state of the case ? It is simply 
that, so far as we have gone yet with our breeding, we have 
not produced from a common stock two breeds which are 
not more or less fertile with one another.” 
Also Huxley writes ("Man’s Place in Nature,” p. 127) : 
" But, for all this, our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis 
must be provisional so long as one link in the chain of 
evidence is wanting; and so long as all the animals and 
plants certainly produced by selective breeding from a 
common stock are fertile, and their progeny are fertile with 
one another, that link will be wanting; for, so long, 
selective breeding will not be proved to be competent to do 
all that is required of it to produce natural species.” 
If all the difficulties which Huxley here states have so far 
prevented the truth of the Darwinian theory concerning 
changes of species from being demonstrated were removed, 
even then more evidence would be required before the 
Darwinian hypothesis of the descent of man could be con- 
sidered proved. For if, by selective breeding from a common PRODUCTION OF NEW VARIETIES. 
133 
stock, races should be produced so different that they are not 
fertile between themselves, that would simply show that 
natural selection may account for differences of races of 
animals ; but that would not show that it can account for the 
difference between men and animals. 
If we could by extra care in selective breeding produce 
such a race as Mr. Huxley supposes might be produced, it 
would simply show what could be done under the intelligent 
guidance of man among animals ; but it would by no means 
show that such a race ever did or probably ever would be 
produced through the guidance of mere instinct, or through 
the dim intelligence of the brutes. We have no reason for 
supposing that the general species of animals have had any- 
thing more than brute intelligence or instinct to guide them 
towards the almost numberless variations of development 
which we find. 
But if it has not been shown that by the greatest care in 
selective breeding among animals, under the intelligent 
guidance of men, the required differences or transmutations 
of species can be obtained, how long would it take to pro- 
duce such results by chance-breeding alone, or by natural 
selection, without intelligent guidance? And if, among 
animals quite similar in their general structure and habits, 
men have not been able to produce new species by careful 
selected breeding, how long wTould it take, through blind 
chance, to develop men from apes? 
We must, however, confess that the statement of Agassiz, 
that each separate existing species represents a separate 
creative thought of God, does not now find a favorable re- 
O ' 
sponse from a majority of naturalists. 
If Agassiz were still living, and were again to write upon 
the same subject, he probably would considerably modify 134 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
some of his former statements. But we must not be hasty in 
concluding that he was greatly in error in his statement 
above quoted; for the history of past scientific theories in 
relation to evolution, and creation, including the origin of 
life, is sufficient evidence of the utter unreliability of theories 
which may carry all before them in the scientific world for 
even a century. 
Take, for instance, the case of the evolution theory, based 
upon the idea that every human being that ever lived or 
ever will live was in the germ in the ovary of Mother Eve, 
and also the other contrary theory, that all life comes from 
the male or sperm cell, and that the germs of all subsequent 
human life were in the loins of Adam. The first theory 
held its ground against all scientific comers for about a cen- 
tury ; and the second had powerful defenders for about 
another century. These two theories were disputed about 
by most intelligent and most learned men, who were pitted 
against each other in argument for nearly a century, and 
why ? 
Because there were no naturalists or biologists of suffi- 
cient learning and ability to convince the world that either of 
these theories was incorrect, and remove the weight of error 
that inhered in both. I will now give a short history of 
these theories, partly taken from the more extended history 
by Haeckel. 
The theory of encasement, or that of the ovulists, viz., 
that the germs of all subsequent human existences were in 
the ovaries of Eve, held it§ ground and was generally ac- 
cepted till 1690. Then the theory of the animalculists, or 
that all came from the loins of Adam, took its turn, and the 
two entered into a contest for supremacy. 
Leeuwenhoek, in 1690, started the spermatozoid theory. OYULIST THEORY. 
And from that came the doctrine that the germs of every 
human being which has ever existed or ever will exist to 
the very latest time were in the loins of Adam, and that 
each spermatozoon had in its microscopic proportions en- 
wrapped the germs of an almost infinite number of human 
beings who were to succeed in all generations. From 
Hebrews, 7 ; 10, it is evident that a similar belief obtained in 
the time of St. Paul, for he there represents Levi, the great- 
grandson of Abraham, as paying tithes to Melchisedec while 
he was in the loins of Abraham. 
Abraham's meeting with Melchisedec was several hundred 
years before the Levitical priesthood was established. These 
two theories of evolution, the one of the male running back to 
Adam, and the other of the female running back to Eve, 
had vigorous defenders, and these discussions were continued 
through the period allotted to several generations. 
Among the celebrated defenders of the ovulist theory wei’e 
Leibnitz, Bonnet, and Haller. 
On the other side were Leeuwenhoek, the originator, and 
afterwards Spalanzani and other very learned men. Haller 
contended that there was no such thing as any new creation, 
and that the germs not only of life but the germs 
of every member of the body existed from the beginning, 
and that every form of life is but the unfolding of what 
existed from the very first creation. This is evolution in 
earnest; and I may say that Haller’s disciples still survive, 
for I have heard the same, or nearly the same, statement 
made by a well-educated gentleman within a short time. 
Haller went so far as to calculate the number of human 
beings in the ovaries of Mother Eve, and (according to 
Haeckel’s statement) this number was " 200,000,000,000,” 
supposing that the world would stand six thousand years. 136 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
What was to become of the world after that time we are not 
informed. The celebrated Leibnitz went so far as to claim 
that the souls of men were in monads or the primary ele- 
ments of matter. According to him the monads were 
"without extent, incorruptible, and so constituted that their 
whole future is contained in their beginning.” "In every 
monad might be read the world’s history from beginning to 
end; each of them being a kind of Deity.” " God is the 
absolute, original monad, from which all the rest are gen- 
erated ; the primitive and necessary substance, in which the 
detail of changes exists emanantly.” (" Am. Gyc.,” p. 325, 
vol. 10.) 
Either the ovulist or the animalculist theory held sway 
with the majority of men, both learned and unlearned, 
until after the beginning of the nineteenth century. From 
1690 to 1812 one or the other theory held the uppermost 
position among scientific men; and for about two hundred 
years one or the other of these theories held especial promi- 
nence in scientific discussions. 
The supporters of present evolutionary theories are not 
superior in intellectual vigor to Leibnitz, Haller, and others, 
who, a hundred or more years ago, were fully satisfied that 
they were correct in the views which they promulgated con- 
cerning the origin and development of life. So also the 
doctrine of cataclysms, which Cuvier believed, and which 
hosts of other great men believed, held almost universal 
acceptance until Lyell showed that the building of the earth’s 
different strata might have been accomplished through 
long ages, quietly, and under the regular operations of 
nature. 
The fact that a theory may apparently explain certain 
heretofore unexplained phenomena by no means shows that “THE WAYS OF MONKEYS.” 
137 
some other theory may not explain these phenomena much 
better. * 
While it is true that men and apes are wonderfully similar 
in their affectionate attachments, and the grief of the ape 
mother on being deprived of her children by death is 
much like that of the human mother, and the disposition to 
curiously examine and investigate concerning all objects 
within their reach is much alike in men and apes, yet some- 
thing more than proof of similarities of disposition and phys- 
ical structure is needed to show that one of these species 
could ever have descended from the other. 
The assent of a majority of the most learned naturalists 
and biologists for a whole generation is not enough, in a 
matter like the origin of the human race (concerning which 
unimpeachable evidence has not been obtained from science), 
to reasonably induce a fully settled belief in theories which 
have not, and probably cannot, at present, be demonstrated. 
In "Popular Science Monthly” for June, 1885, there is a 
very able article on " The Ways of Monkeys,” from the pen 
of the noted German naturalist, Alfred E. Brehm. Brehm 
had extensive and uncommon opportunities for studying the 
nature and habits of the apes, both in captivity and in the 
wilds where they live, and he closes his article as follows : 
" Was the ancestor of the human race a monkey ? That 
is the vexed question which still raises so much dust. 
" There is no doubt that man is not more and not less than 
the chief creature in the animal kingdom, and that the 
monkeys are his immediate neighbors; but I cannot see why 
this fact should logically involve the assumption that our 
great-great-uncles were gambolling in Paradise in the shape 
of apes. The doctrine of gradual evolution may seem trust- 
worthy in the highest degree, and beautiful from the scientific 138 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
stand-point, but it is based upon a simple hypothesis ; and a 
hypothesis is not a proof; and here I wish not to be misun- 
derstood. Even if the physical and intellectual development 
and perfection of humanity throughout the succession of thou- 
sands of centuries is a fact, there is no authority for the in- 
ference that, eo ipso, a monkey-nest was the cradle of man- 
kind. 
" Darwin’s treatise on the variation of species gave rise to 
the ardent controversy of our days. Darwin used the wrong 
word. It is not 'species’ he ought to have said, but 
' varieties ; ’ for species never interbreed with each other. 
Man and monkey, though belonging to the same group, 
represent two distinct species. There is, consequently, a 
simple and irrefragable natural law refuting peremptorily the 
thesis of the enthusiastic propugnators of the pedigree root- 
ing somewhere amid a grinning tribe gambolling in the wild 
forests of Asia or Africa. The criterion that the human race 
has large, round hands, and blunt, canine teeth would be 
sufficient of itself to establish the truth that no monkey-blood 
is pulsating in our veins. But there are more distinctive 
features. Men have strong, well-shaped legs, walk con- 
stantly in an erect posture, and enjoy the faculty of speech. 
" The monkeys rank near humanity in the general organ- 
ization of the world ; they show in many instances much like- 
ness with mankind, physically as well as intellectually. Bui 
a further concession would be a denial of positive natural 
laws. Nay; old Adam was not a monkey, not a baboon, 
not even a chimpanzee ! ” 
This declaration of Dr. Brehm will be considered scientific 
scepticism. But do we not sadly need more of this kind of 
scepticism? It is curious to observe, however, that those 
most impatient with this kind of scepticism are accustomed HiECKEL AND HUXLEY. 
139 
to compliment other kinds of scepticism with the name of 
philosophical inquiry. 
In one respect Eheckel differs widely from Mr. Huxley. 
With Huxley scientific scepticism is a duty. He says, in 
substance, "compel assent if you can,” or compel me to re- 
ceive the proposed hypothesis if you can, and I will receive it. 
But Hreckel says of Darwin’s Theory of Descent ("Hist, of 
Creation,” p. 28) : "In any case we are in duty bound to 
accept this theory till a better one be found which will under- 
take to explain the same amount of facts in an equally simple 
manner. Until now we have been in utter want of such a 
theory.” And, further, when he wishes to show that there 
is no necessity for supposing that there was an original Crea- 
tor, he says : "It cannot fail to appear, in the light of the 
Doctrine of Descent, no longer as the ingeniously designed 
work of a Creator building up according to a definite pur- 
pose, but as the necessary consequence of active causes which 
are inherent in the chemical combination of matter itself, and 
in its physical properties.” (p. 27, "Hist, of Creation.”) 
How has the doctor or any one else learned that these 
" active causes which are inherent in the chemical combina- 
tion of matter itself” are naturally " inherent ? ” How does 
he know that these " inherent ” qualities are not the agencies 
of the very Creator he would so summarily dispense Avithr 
It is easy for most men to believe what they really wish to 
believe. 140 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
CHAPTER YI. 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
The question whether there is a designing intelligence 
behind the phenomena which we observe in nature will con- 
tinually meet us. 
Does the material universe (as well as the entire list of 
animals) exhibit itself so unskilfully and clumsily consti- 
tuted that its construction is disgraceful to or unworthy 
of a designing intelligence ? Is it because all nature is so 
o o o 
poorly arranged for intended purposes that a certain class of 
writers must attribute its existence to blind, unconscious, 
purposeless forces, or to necessity? Because we can see no 
evidence of design in certain things which exist, shall we 
assume that the many apparent evidences of design are all 
deceptive ? 
This raises questions concerning the connection between 
mind and matter, and concerning their dependence on or 
independence of each other : whether mind is dependent upon 
matter for its existence, or whether mind existed prior to or 
can exist independent of matter. 
Is it reasonable to suppose that the mind, which moulds 
matter according to its purposes, which uses matter as it 
wills, to which all matter is subject, can be itself subject 
to material laws, and itself the child of matter? 
Like begets like: can intelligence spring from a source 
which is not itself intelligent, or from something having a 
less intellectual nature than an intelligent being? Can in- MIND AND MATTER. 
141 
telligence be evolved from mere matter, which it is supposed 
has no intelligence? What is the real origin of thought? 
How did it first have an existence? Whence came the 
consciousness of our own existence ? Is the idea that thought 
can have been evolved or derived from an unthinking source 
a thinkable one ? 
Must we not conclude that there is a self-existent intelli- 
gent source of thought, unless we are prepared to confess 
that an effect has been produced without any adequate 
cause ? 
Can the mind, through which matter is made subservient 
to the desires of man, be itself derived from matter? Is a 
machine the producer of the mind which first conceives the 
idea of its construction ? Which precedes in the order of time, 
the machine, or the plan of the machine, in the mind of its 
inventor? Carry this idea through the whole realm of 
nature, even to the construction of the worlds which consti- 
tute the universe, and you will find that the analogy holds 
good. 
Sidney Billing says (p. 8, "Scientific Materialism”): 
" When the symbol photographed in the eye receives transla- 
tion it becomes our reality. How then can it be said the 
major (mind) has its origin in the minor? (matter) ; logi- 
cally we know all majors are composed of minors, but this 
can be said only of related things; pile as we may atom 
on atom we should never elicit mind; pile idea on idea and 
a wisdom would be attainable approaching the precincts of 
infinitude. Perceptive knowledge is built up of the symbols 
of things, not of things. How then can we say that the 
symbolical expression of that we term matter, objective 
forms, creates the subjecting intellect?” 
But I hear it repeated, that living and active forces inhere 142 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
in the very atoms of which the universe itself consists. 
Well, how did these active forces get into these atoms ? Who 
placed them there ? Did these forces make themselves ? 
Were they self-originating? Were they self-existent? If 
we predicate self-existence of matter, by what just reasoning 
can we deny self-existence to intelligence? 
Agassiz went to the very bottom of this subject, and 
acknowledged a first and ultimate cause; but Eheckel says, 
" All our knowledge is limited, and we can never apprehend 
the first causes of any phenomena.” 
While it is not likely that avc shall ever " apprehend ” or 
comprehend " first causes,” we know that there must have 
been a first cause, or "cause of causes,” or else an endless 
chain of causes. Agassiz refers all to a great first cause. 
Haeckel does not inquire about the first cause, but only in 
regard to the action of secondary causes. He does not seem 
to consider that these secondary causes must be dependent 
for their action on a great first cause. Ido not think Darwin 
ever denied the creative acts of a great first cause. Darwin 
started in his calculation and theories with life already in 
existence, and reasoned from what has succeeded the first 
creation. Darwin closed his enlarged and corrected sixth 
edition of the " Origin of Species ” with these words : " There 
is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, 
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few 
forms or into one, and that, whilst this planet has gone 
cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so 
simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most 
wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” Here Darwin 
7 O 
acknowledges that the Creator originally breathed life into 
" a few forms or into one.” 
But if you ask the atheistic class how life or living beings CREATIONS. 
143 
came to exist on the earth, when it is evident from the 
teachings of geology that there was once a time when no life 
existed on the earth, the answer readily comes, "By sponta- 
neous generation.” 
But if this " spontaneous ” theory is true, what has been 
spontaneously generated? Bits or particles of protoplasm? 
How large were these particles of the first living matter? 
If molecules of livingmatter can be spontaneously generated, 
why may not larger living particles also be generated 
spontaneously ? 
How do we know that what we call " spontaneous ” is not 
something ordered by a divine creative power ? And if this 
" spontaneous ” or creative power could bring into being from 
non-being molecules of living matter, why could not this 
force or power also bring into being larger masses of proto- 
plasm, or even living animals? And if animals of the very 
simplest structure, why not those of more complex structure, 
or even animals of the higher orders ? Where shall we stop 
the possibilities of this power, whether we call it creator, 
living force, or by any other name? Some power has 
brought the living from the non-living. Then by what 
philosophical consistency can we ridicule the idea of special 
creations, even if we cannot prove that there ever has been 
any special creation? 
We have been accustomed to see nature work in certain 
ways, and we have never observed it to work in any dif- 
ferent way, and hence we infer that it cannot work in any 
other way. But this is by no means the necessary conclusion ; 
and yet from the very constitution of our minds we are in- 
clined to draw such an inference. If we had never seen 
anything spring up and grow as certain kinds of vegetation 
do, and one should attempt to explain how such a thing 144 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
might exist, we might doubt its existence. His statement 
might seem to us as wonderful and inexplicable as some 
other events which have been deemed miraculous, and this 
simply because it was so different from anything we had ever 
seen or contemplated. So we see living things produced in 
certain ways. We know that animals and plants come into 
existence in certain ways, and we infer that they have always 
come into existence in the same way, and we also infer 
that they cannot be brought into existence in any other way; 
but this last inference is by no means a necessary one. 
The fact that we have never known a certain thing to 
exist furnishes no proof that such a thing has not existed, 
or may not exist. Thus both spontaneous generation and 
the " Immaculate Conception ” have been supposed to exist, 
and probably as many believe that the " Immaculate Con- 
ception ” actually took place as believe that " spontaneous 
generation ” ever took place ; and the believers in the " Im- 
maculate Conception ” are not inferior intellectually to the 
believers in r' spontaneous generation ; ” yet nearly all be- 
lievers in spontaneous generation ridicule the doctrine of the 
" Immaculate Conception.” But whether either spontane- 
ous generation or the " Immaculate Conception ” ever ex- 
isted may be incapable of proof or disproof through any 
scientific demonstrations. 
Because there is a general similarity of plan in the build- 
ing up of all animals, trees, and vegetables, and all other 
living things, the inference is drawn that all these forms 
have descended from some common ancestor. It is just 
here that the development and the former creative theories 
branch off from each other. Their point of contact is like the 
entering part of a wedge, and from that point they diverge. 
Evolutionists contend that it is easier and more philosophical SIMILARITIES. 
145 
to believe that this striking resemblance in all animal ex- 
istences is caused by development through the laws of de- 
scent from a common ancestor than to believe it comes 
from separate creative acts. 
But this similarity does not stop on the earth, or with life 
on the earth either in the animal or vegetable forms; but 
the same proportions and similarities run through the plan- 
etary systems ; and we might ask, From what ancestors did 
the planetary system descend? How about the solar sys- 
tem ? How comes it that there are such striking proportions 
between the planetary distances and the groups of leaves on 
the trees and the flowers in the garden or on the hill-side? 
(See Agassiz on "Classification,” p. 193.) Why should pro- 
portional numbers of the various orders of plants so corre- 
spond to the distances of the planets? 
This question, if answered, might carry out the develop- 
ment hypothesis to its philosophical or logical conclusions. 
But, further, how comes it that the solar system appears to 
be but a picture, or type of the universe, which certain 
astronomers have supposed revolves around a great central 
sun at a period numbering millions of years ? It can 
easily be conceived how the moon may, in a figurative 
manner, be called a child of the earth, for perhaps fifty 
millions of years ago (more or less) the moon may have 
been thrown off from the surface of the earth when the 
earth’s revolutions were so rapid as to overcome the attrac- 
tive forces. 
It is not probable that in like manner the planets can be 
called children of the sun, for it appears probable that the 
earth became consolidated from cosmic vapor earlier in time 
than the sun. 
Doubtless all suns, stars, and planets are governed by 146 
THE DEVELOPMENT OE LIFE. 
fixed and immutable laws, and their shapes, being nearly 
globular, are substantially alike. And further, perhaps their 
material substances or chemical combinations may be sub- 
stantially alike. This is all within the range of probability. 
By " immutable laws ” I mean the observed antecedence 
and sequence of events, and their connection with and de- 
pendence upon each other. When we assume this immu- 
tability we do not know that there may not be thousands 
of antecedents and consequents, the nature of which we 
cannot comprehend. 
But what reflective and unbiassed man can see all this 
immense system, commencing at the smallest particle which 
can be seen with the microscope, and trace it up through 
all sizes and types, and find the same beautiful order run- 
ning from the smallest animalcule to the largest planets and 
suns, and then see no Supreme Architect for all these in- 
finite variations ? 
I am aware that those who do not believe that mind or 
spirit can have a real existence separate from matter, but 
who assume that mind is a mere process or a variation of 
some form of life, will not consider this mode of treatment 
scientific. But before such become too positive in their 
statements concerning the nature of the original mind, in- 
telligence, or spiritual existence, it will be well for them to 
give us something besides speculative assumptions upon 
which they build their theories. 
Which is the more dignified and the more reasonable? to 
believe in the existence of an Almighty Intelligent Power, who 
created, and still sustains the universe by his constant care, 
or to believe that dead, soulless, mindless matter, without 
any purpose, and through " unconscious causes,” brought 
into existence the sun, planets, and stars through space ARRANGEMENT OF THE UNIVERSE. 
147 
illimitable, together with all the intelligence of rational 
creatures ? 
In regard to the beautiful and perfect arrangement of the 
heavenly bodies, Robert Chambers, the author of " Yestiges 
of the Creation,” says (pp. 17, 18, Harper’s edition) : 
" Proportions of numbers and geometrical figures rest at the 
bottom of the whole. These considerations, when the mind 
is thoroughly prepared for them, tend to raise our ideas with 
respect to the character of physical laws, even though we do 
not go a single step further in the investigation; but it is 
impossible for an intelligent mind to stop there. We advance 
from law to law, and ask, What is that? Whence have come 
all these beautiful regulations? Here science leaves us, but 
only to conclude, from other grounds, that there is a first 
cause, to which all others are secondary and ministrative, a 
primitive, almighty will, of which these laws are merely the 
mandates. That great Being, who shall say where is his 
dwelling-place, or what his history? Man pauses breathless 
at the contemplation of a subject so much above his finite 
faculties, and can only wonder and adore.” 
Opinions of scientific men on these points are no better 
than those of so many farmers. Reason and common-sense 
must be our guide here (if we reject the idea of revelation), 
for all know that certain facts exist which man has never ex- 
plained. The lines that somebody once wrote about two 
kinds of fools are applicable here, viz. : "The simple fool is 
he who knows that he does not know; the compound fool is 
he who does not know that he does not know.” 
Possibly, if the advocates of various conflicting theories 
concerning the origin of things could better understand 
the positions of their opponents, there might not appear 
to be a very wide divergence at the real foundations of their 148 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
beliefs; but these differences of opinion now seem to be 
radical at the very foundation. But I may remark that all 
men believe there is an invisible force or power acting 
through nature; and the very germ of the whole inquiry on 
this point lies in this, viz. ; is this invisible power an intelli- 
gent one? Does this intelligent power (if it exists) exist 
separate from and independent of matter? or, if it exists 
and inheres in matter now, did it exist prior to matter, and 
organize matter into bodies as they now exist? or, if matter 
in its elements is eternal, and spirit eternal also, did this 
intelligence or power create the forces that drew these ele- 
ments of matter together into worlds and systems of worlds ? 
Are what we call the laws of nature simply unconscious 
forces ? or are they manifestations of an intelligent being by 
whose power these forces were created, and by whose will 
they are kept in unerring operation? If one admits that 
these forces are under intelligent or purposive direction, he 
admits the most essential part of the theistic argument; for 
if this intelligent power exists and acts, it matters little (from 
a scientific stand-point) by what name we call it, whether 
we call it God, Allah, Jehovah, or by some other name. 
But in a religious sense it makes a vast difference, for no 
one would consider a simple power of nature worthy of 
adoration and worship. But if this power is like or akin to 
what we term personal, and of the highest intelligence, it is 
in the highest degree proper that he should be revered and 
worshipped; for by this power all life, all good must be 
held. All our well-being, not only now but for the whole 
of our existence (be that longer or shorter), and whether 
the soul survives the body or not, is in his keeping. If the 
soul does not survive the dissolution of the body, then all 
the happiness we can ever experience will be in this world, INTELLIGENCE AND SYMPATHY. 
149 
and even that is of the greatest moment; for it is the greatest 
boon we can have. If this intelligence exists and is, or is 
like a personal being, it is certainly reasonable to hope that 
he may have sympathies and affections. 
Every intelligent creature of which we have any knowledge 
has sympathy ; and why should we imagine that the very 
highest intelligence should be devoid of sympathy? and if 
not devoid of sympathy, why, in a scientific sense, is it not 
reasonable to strive to be worthy of this sympathy, and why 
should we not also hope that we may do something towards 
deepening this sympathy in our behalf? If we believe as 
the major part of the greatest thinkers in the most enlightened 
nations of the earth have believed in regard to the soul’s im- 
mortality, or as Socrates and his illustrious disciple Plato 
taught, or as, later, Jesus taught, " That man is a being des- 
tined for eternity,” then this question concerning immortal 
existence must be a very important one ; and if the belief in 
its reality is founded on fact then this idea deepens into one 
of supreme importance. In the presence of this question all 
others dwindle into comparative insignificance. 
But if we conclude that we cannot demonstrate the cor- 
rectness or incorrectness of the existence of an almighty and 
benevolent Intelligence, and a conscious immortal existence, 
still this is no trifling question, for it lies at the very root of 
our most important interests. It would seem as if all might 
be agreed here. lam aware that it is impossible for human 
thought to grasp the terms Infinity, Omnipotence, Omni- 
science, and the like, and that in attempting to apply human 
words to describe The Ineffable, or one infinitely above all 
our conceptions, we can make but a sorry approach towards 
such expressions as we would like to make. Being ourselves 
of limited intellectual powers, we cannot fathom the myste- 150 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
rious essence of a power infinitely above our highest intel- 
lectual conceptions ; but in speaking of Him we are obliged 
to use human language, and are also confined within the 
limits of human thought; hence all our descriptions and con- 
ceptions of the Divine One must of necessity be very imper- 
fect. But though we cannot comprehend the idea of infinity 
or eternity, we are not debarred from reasoning■ concerning 
them. 
Considerable misunderstanding has arisen concerning what 
is meant by the term " creative theory.” Many understand 
by this something like Milton’s poetical descriptions, or that 
each separate species of animals was originally created with 
characteristics essentially like those they now possess. But 
it by no means follows that another theory may not properly 
claim the name creative. Any theory which necessitates the 
existence of an original creator is a creative theory. 
The theory which is distinctively in opposition to the 
" spontaneous generation ” theory of life is properly called 
creative. The doctrines of evolution as taught by Darwin 
necessitate the existence of creative intelligence to start life 
into being, as Darwin himself intimates in the closing 
paragraph of his "Origin of Species,” and any theory 
which calls for this creative beginning is properly styled a 
creative one. It is true that Huxley demolished a certain 
theory which he called creative, viz., "The Miltonic 
Theory; ” but even Huxley was obliged to admit that 
some time during past ages the present laws of nature might 
not have acted in the invariable order in which they now act. 
Even if only one form or type of life was originally created, 
and all succeeding types or forms however varied have been 
evolved from that original form, creative intelligence is 
none the less needed to start that original form of life. The DESIGNING POWER. 
151 
intelligent being or power who set in motion causes which 
would result in such a surprising variety of living creatures 
through descent from one single form (if life has thus been 
evolved) must be indeed of the very highest order of in- 
telligence. If this being set in order laws through which 
the world both animate and inanimate would run on without 
any disturbance of its natural relations for millions of years 
without intelligent supervision, that being must, if possible, 
be of even a higher order of intelligence than one that 
should originate a system that would run regularly with 
intelligent supervision. 
What I claim, however, is that this immense machinery 
of life, as well as of inorganic nature, which, we say, is 
governed by the laws of nature, could not originate itself; 
but it must have been originated or set in motion by a power, 
force, or being having an infinitely high order of intelligence. 
Nothing less than this could plan and execute all that is 
involved in the continued preservation of life, as well as 
keep in regular orbits the planetary worlds. 
If the Darwinian theory is correct, and all animals and 
plants have been, through countless ages, developed from a 
"few original forms,” then this very system of develop- 
ment, so constant and regular in its operations, necessitates 
the existence of an Omnipotent and Omniscient Power to or- 
dain, guide, regulate and execute these complicated natural 
laws so that, ever acting, they never clash or fail in their 
unvarying regularity. 
Much ingenuity and a considerable amount of learning 
have been employed to show that the all-pervading power, 
"which every reflecting person must see exists, and which 
governs all the operations of nature, is not an intelligent 
being, but only a blind force, or simple necessity, operating 152 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
in a manner purely mechanical. While others admit that 
there must have been an intelligent power to originate natural 
laws, they contend that, when once instituted, these laws run 
on without need of any intelligent supervision. 
Dr. Hitchcock, on pp. 294, 295, " Religion and Geology,” 
writes concerning the position of the advocates of this last 
theory as follows : 
"I know, indeed, that La Place, and some other advocates 
of this latter hypothesis, do not admit any necessity for a 
Deity even to originate matter or its laws; and to prove this 
was the object of the nebular hypothesis. But how evident 
that in this he signally failed ! For even though he could 
show how nebulous matter, placed in a certain position, and 
having a revolution, might be separated into sun and planets 
by merely mechanical laws, yet where, save in an infinite 
Deity, lie the power and the wisdom to originate that matter, 
and to bring it into such a condition, that, by blind laws 
alone, it would produce such a universe so harmonious, so 
varied, so nicely adjusted in its parts and relations, as the 
one we inhabit? Especially, how does this hypothesis show 
in what manner these worlds could be peopled by countless 
myriads of organic natures, most exquisitely contrived, and 
fitted to their condition ? The atheist may say that matter 
is eternal. But if so, what but an infinite mind could in 
time begin the work of organic creation ? If the matter ex- 
isted for eternal ages without being brought into order, and 
into organic structure, why did it not continue in the same 
state forever? Does the atheist say, All is the result of 
laws inherent in matter? But how could those laws remain 
dormant through all past eternity, that is, through a period 
literally infinite, and then at length be aroused into in- 
tense action? Besides, to impute the present wise arrange- BUDDHIST THEORIES. 
153 
ments and organic creations of the world to law is to endow 
that law with all the attributes with which the theist invests 
the Deity. Nothing short of intelligence, and wisdom, and 
benevolence, and power, infinitely above what man possesses 
will account for the present world. If there is, then, a 
power inherent in matter adequate to the production of such 
effects, that power must be the same as the Deity ; and, 
therefore, it is truly the Deity, by whatever name we call 
it.” 
The idea that blind, unconscious forces are the ruling 
powers of the world well agrees with the leading tenets of 
Buddhism. The Buddhist religion does not mention any 
God as the creator and ruler of the world. Neither do they 
have any idea of the moral quality of any act being at all 
changed or modified because it is according to the will of 
any God. All the idea of morality they have is simply a 
fitness of things, and the consequences of acts follow not as 
we should suppose, with invariable sequence, but often by a 
sort of fitful irregularity. But their doctrine of transmigra- 
tion of souls gives them the chance to account for all the 
evils which befall any one here; for the sufferings which one 
has here are the result of acts which he may have committed 
in a previous state of existence when he might have been an 
elephant, or, perhaps, a tiger. This well accords with the 
evolutionary theory of inherited tendencies, characters, or 
traits. 
Arnold, in " Light of Asia,” p. 96, writes : 
“ That once and wheresoe’er, and whence begun 
Life runs its rounds of living, climbing up 
Erom mote, and gnat, and worm, reptile and fish, 
Bird and shagged beast, man, demon, deva, God, 
To clod and mote again; so are we kin 
To all that is.” 154 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
Of course, with the absence of a belief in an eternal self- 
existent Deity, the idea of immortality must, of necessity, be 
absent. But according to Buddhist teachings, the least time 
which the bad will have to stay in one of their one hundred 
and thirty-six hells is ten millions of years, and the least 
time in their heaven is ten billions of years; yet this is 
not immortality, for at the end of these immense cycles 
death comes, and then the unfortunate must be born again, 
into what shape, whether animal, vegetable, or human, no 
one previously knows. Buddha arrived at such a state of 
knowledge that he could remember what he did when he was 
in the shape of several different animals before he was born 
a man, so the sacred books inform us,—and that, to him, 
must amount to a demonstration of his line of descent. 
Speculations concerning the origin of the universe, as well 
as of organic life, are no new thing. 
Plato noticed the arrangements and motions of the planets 
and those of animated nature; for, according to Bain, he 
considered the Cosmos, "in its totality a vast and com- 
prehensive animated being; the model for it is the Idea 
of Animal the Self-Animal. As created, the Kosmos is 
a scheme of rotatory spheres, and has both a Soul and a 
Body. The Soul, rooted at the centre, and pervading the 
whole, is self-moving, and the cause of movement in the 
Kosmical body.” ("Mind and Body,” p. 147.) This 
universal Soul typified the laws of attraction or gravitation. 
Plato likewise believed in degrees of intelligence and station, 
and in a line of reasoning like that of the present evolution- 
ists, only he starts from a different stand-point. He starts 
with the gods as the highest intelligence, and then runs 
down in a series of degeneracies through men to the animals. 
He makes the seat of the immortal soul in the brain; but PLATO 
155 
this soul has to contend with two other principles which 
sadly hamper it in its harmonious acts and desires. He also 
believed in self-existent ideas, or intelligence anterior to the 
formation of the world; but it would seem that Plato 
believed in the eternal existence of matter in its simple con- 
stituents, a scientific idea which many modern philoso- 
phers still cling to. 
It is evident, however, that Plato believed in one original 
great First Cause, or one eternal, intelligent, self-existing 
Being, who was the organizer of all things; but that, sub- 
sequently, other inferior deities presided over the destinies 
of the Cosmos. 
These inferior deities may well represent the secondary 
causes, or natural laws. 
In regard to the creation, or, rather, formation of worlds, 
the theory of La Place has been widely received, and may 
be as philosophical as any other which has been proposed. 
Summarized by Dr. Hitchcock, it is as follows, p. 287 : 
"He (La Place) supposes that, originally, the whole 
solar system constituted only one vast mass of nebulous 
matter, being expanded into the thinnest vapor and gas by 
heat, and more than filling the space at present occupied by 
the planets. This vapor he still further supposes had a 
revolution from west to east on an axis. As the heat 
diminished by radiation, the nebulous matter must condense, 
and consequently the velocity of rotation must increase, and 
an exterior zone of vapor might be detached, since the central 
attraction might not be able to overcome the increased 
centrifugal force. This ring of vapor might sometimes 
retain its original form, as in the case of Saturn’s ring; but 
the tendency would be, in general, to divide into several 
masses, which, by coalescing again, would form a single 156 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
mass, having a revolution about the sun, and on its axis. 
This would constitute a planet in a state of vapor; and by 
the detachment of successive rings might all the planets 
be produced. As they went on contracting, by the same 
law, satellites might be formed to each ; and the ultimate 
result would be solid planets and satellites, revolving around 
the sun in nearly the same plane, and in the same direction, 
and also on their axes.” 
The above statement applies to the formation of the solar 
system ; but it is only a part of the nebular hypothesis ; and 
why should the solar system be created, or formed in a man- 
ner different from the formation of other worlds comprising 
the universe ? And if this thin cosmic vapor originally filled 
the whole space, and even beyond that now occupied by the 
solar system, why should not a like cosmic vapor from which 
the entire universe has been formed exist and also fill all 
space ? 
This still leaves us in the dark as to how this cosmic 
vapor happened to be in existence before this motion com- 
menced. 
La Place thought he could dispense with the necessity of a 
creator, and substitute natural causes or laws in his place ; 
but he only pushed the inquiry one degree further back, and 
the question still recurs, what less than infinite intelligence 
and power could have instituted these laws of nature ? 
The monists contend that there is really but one original 
force in the universe, and that what we call living and dead 
matter are one and the same, as to their ultimate vital con- 
dition and forces. Haeckel says (in vol. 1, "History of 
Creation,” p. 23, as quoted in another place) : "We thus 
arrive at the extremely important conviction that all natural 
bodies which are known to us are equally animated, that the 157 
EOBINET. 
distinction which has been made between animate and inani- 
mate bodies does not exist.” 
However, he is not the first to discover, even among 
moderns, that all things are "equally animated ; ” for, accord- 
ing to Henslow, Robinet wrote, more than a hundred years 
ago, that all things alike have sentient perceptions ; all grow, 
desire, and propagate. Thus he says, fire is hungry and 
voracious ; it feeds on air, and if air be wanting, it expires. 
So, too, air feeds on water, while water feeds on other sub- 
stances. And thus he accounts for such minerals as salt, 
iron, etc., being found in mineral springs. The following 
quotation will illustrate his style of reasoning : 
" I have sought for the germs of stones and the vessels 
which contain them ; nor have my researches been fruitless. 
I have even discovered how stones and minerals eject their 
germs. If I have been unable to detect their sexes, how 
many animals and plants are in the same condition ! Finally 
we have seen an infinity of foetal stones and metals in their 
wombs, with their envelops and placentas; we have seen 
them growing and nourishing them like animals. There 
may be stones which multiply by budding, as is the case 
with trees and some animals. But observations are wantingl 
to confirm this conjecture.” (" Evolution of Living Things,” 
pp. 16, 17.) 
The words, " Observations are wanting to confirm,” in 
this last sentence, are well introduced by Robinet; and I 
think that " observations ” to prove that all things are 
" equally animated ” will be " wanting to confirm that con- 
jecture ” for a long time to come. 
Monists contend that the forces which build the crystals 
are living as well as those which build the bodies of living 
animals, but the difference between the living and the dead, 158 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
or between the organic and inorganic matter, is radical. 
The crystal is built from the outside by natural forces, and 
when its particles or molecules are once placed in their 
natural positions, by inherent natural forces, they may 
remain asons of time without the least change, unless taken 
away by absorption or by being dissolved or ground away. 
To change a crystal in the least degree without mechani- 
cal violence, the very force which caused it to be built up 
must be reversed, and stronger forces must operate in a 
different direction. When the crystal is once built it is 
built to last forever, or till other forces in nature commence 
to take the molecules of which it is composed from the out- 
side, one by one, by forces just the opposite from that 
through which they were placed in position. But in all 
living animal organisms there is continuous motion through 
growth and decay. The living animal organism never 
remains stationary for a single second of time. In fact, the 
instant vital motion stops death takes place, or, more properly 
speaking, this vital motion or action always continues until 
death occurs. Ceasing of vital motion is death. 
It is true a living structure (a plant, for instance) may 
perish slowly, by almost imperceptible degrees ; but this 
decay is none the less sure because slow. 
It is useless to assert that the ultimate atoms of which in- 
organic matter is composed must of necessity in all cases be 
in constant motion, while we can produce no tangible evi- 
dence that such supposed condition of tilings really exists. 
Living motion is continuous in the very lowest animals ; but 
it is more easily perceived in the higher organisms. 
The forces which act to build the crystals come from with- 
out, while the active forces in living organisms come from 
within. How can we reasonably confound the two? QUATREFAGES. 
159 
Quatrefages (" Human Species,” pp. 4, 5) says: 
" The reason is that, in the organized being, the repose of 
the crystal is replaced by an incessant movement; that, 
instead of remaining immovable and unalterable, the mole- 
cules are unceasingly undergoing transformation, changing 
their composition, producing fresh substances, retaining 
some and rejecting others. Far from resembling a pile 
of shot, the organized being may much rather be compared 
to the combination of a number of physico-chemical appa- 
ratus, constantly in action to burn or reduce materials 
borrowed from without, and ever making use of their own 
substance for its incessant renewal.” 
"In other words, in the crystal once formed the forces 
remain in a state of stable equilibrium, which is only inter- 
rupted by the influence of exterior causes. Hence the pos- 
sibility of its indefinite continuance without any change either 
of its forms or of its properties. In the organized being the 
equilibrium is unstable, or, rather, there is no equilibrium, 
properly so called. Every moment the organized being 
expends as much force as matter, and owes its continuance 
solely to the balance of the gain and loss. Hence the 
possibility of a modification of its properties and form with- 
out its ceasing to exist. Such are the bare facts, which rest 
upon no hypothesis whatever; and how can we, in the 
presence of these facts, compare the crystal which grows in a 
saline solution to the germ which becomes in succession 
embryo, foetus, and finally a complete animal? How can 
we confuse the inanimate body with the organized being?” 
" But organized beings have also their special phenomena 
radically distinct from, or even opposed to, the former. Is 
it possible to refer all of them to one, or to several, identical 
causes? I think not. For this reason, I admit with a 160 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
great number of eminent men of every age and country, 
and, I believe, with the majority of those that respect modern 
science, that organized beings owe their distinctive charac- 
teristics to a Special Cause, to a Special Force, to Life, 
which, in them, is associated with the inorganic forces. 
For this reason I consider it legitimate to call them Living 
Beings.” 
At the first development or unfolding of life the living 
action in the vegetable is essentially like that in the animal. 
While the seed is germinating there is a constant molecular 
action, and this motion being continuous is like that in the 
lowest forms of animal life ; and in most cases it is not till the 
plant has risen above the surface of the ground and is acted 
upon by the sunlight, and chlorophil is absorbed by the 
plant, that what is generally considered distinctive vegetable 
life appears. All the protoplasm necessary to the growth of 
either plants or animals must be taken in a comparatively 
fluid state, and the particles placed where they belong, after 
which the water that has held these particles in solution is 
absorbed or evaporated. Vegetables take their nourishment 
from the outside through their rootlets or through their 
leaves. They also convert inorganic substances into organic, 
a thing which, generally speaking, animals cannot do. 
Animals generally take food through mouths into a stomach, 
and can be nourished by organic matter only. But some 
animals do not seem to have any stomach. 
The ultimate principle of life in the animal and the vege- 
table seems to be one and the same; but a very noticeable 
difference is, that, when the living particles are once firmly 
placed in a tree, they appear to be stationary, and not to 
change, as in the case of animals. Every part of animals, 
bones, muscles, and tissues, —is in a state of constant change. PERSONAL IDENTITY. 
161 
It is believed that not a single particle of matter which is in 
the child remains in his body till adult life is reached. But 
the wonderful fact remains that the individuality or personal 
identity continues though every particle of the matter of the 
body has been changed. What is this wonderful entity 
which preserves personal identity, and makes one still the 
same person though all else has been changed? Can it be 
other than a living force ? 162 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
CHAPTER VII. 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
This chapter is chiefly devoted to further examination of 
various theories of the development of life. 
An actual fact is not changed, whether it is stated by one 
who is learned or by one who is comparatively ignorant, the 
fact still remains eternal truth. 
Agassiz believed that an almighty creative intelligence 
established the very laws of nature themselves. Had Agassiz 
yielded to the demands of that class who do not believe that 
a being of infinite intelligence was the originator of earthly 
existence, and taught that species came to exist through the 
laws of nature without the intervention of a creator, might 
he not have passed with them for a distributor of opinions 
of the highest scientific value? But every person who was 
fortunate enough to be acquainted with that gifted naturalist 
is convinced that he taught only what he believed to be 
true. 
Hseckel writes, p. 117 : "When, in 1873, the grave closed 
over Louis Agassiz, the last great upholder of the constancy 
of species and of miraculous creation, the dogma of the con- 
stancy of species came to an end, and the contrary assump- 
tion the assertion that all the various species descend 
from common ancestral forms now no longer encounters 
serious difficulties.” 
Suppose " that the assumption that all the various species 
descended from common ancestral forms now encounters no AGASSIZ. 
163 
serious difficulties ” in consequence of the death of Agassiz, 
does not that very statement seem to imply that the validity 
of that doctrine might be in some measure dependent upon 
the teachings of men ? What difference could the living or 
dying of any man make as to the truth or falsity of actual 
facts ? 
By constancy of species Agassiz meant that there has 
been no change of one species into another. Thus, he 
taught that lions are descendants of lions, or some ancestor 
of the cat family ; and sheep of sheep from their first crea- 
tion, and that the descendants of lions will be lions, and the 
descendants of sheep, sheep, etc., and that these animals will 
never in the future change into any other race of animals 
essentially different from the present races. 
He taught that the ancestors of men were men from their 
earliest creation, and their descendants, to their latest pos- 
terity, will also be men with mental and physical charac- 
teristics essentially like those now living. 
Most of those who indorse the theory of man’s descent 
from an original one-celled ancestor contend that there is a 
continuous line of development by the laws of nature. 
It should be borne in mind, however, that there are many 
firm believers in the doctrines of evolution who also firmly 
believe that an almighty creative intelligence established the 
laws of development, and that what we call the laws of 
nature are only the manifestations of his manner of Work- 
ing- 
Concerning Lamarck’s theory, Haeckel writes, vol. 1, 
"Evolution of Man,” p. 85; "Lamarck was the first to 
formulate the scientific theory of the natural origin of all 
organisms, including man, and at the same time to draw the 
two ultimate inferences from this theory ; firstly, the doctrine 164 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
of the origin of the most ancient organisms through spon- 
taneous generation ; and, secondly, the descent of Man from 
the Mammal most closely resembling Man, the Ape.” 
In attempting to explain how this came about, "he con- 
sidered that, on the one hand, practice and habit (adapta- 
tion), and, on the other, heredity, are the most important of 
these causes.” 
On page 86 he adduces examples as follows : "To mention 
examples, the Woodpecker and the Humming-bird owe their 
peculiarly long tongue to their habit of using these organs 
to take their food out of narrow and deep crevices ; the 
Frog acquired a web between its toes from the motions 
of swimming; the Giraffe gained its long neck by stretch- 
ing it up to the branches of trees.” " Lamarck fully 
perceived that Heredity must necessarily cooperate with 
Adaptation.” 
To sum up, he contends that the first step made by apes 
towards becoming men, was when they gave up the habit of 
climbing trees, and " accustomed themselves to an upright 
gait.” This exercise developed the spine and the pelvis ; 
and the fore-legs, instead of being used for climbing, devel- 
oped into arms and hands for the " purpose of grasping and 
touching,” while the hind pair were used for walking, and 
their extremities were developed into true feet. "In conse- 
quence of the totally changed mode of life,” there came a 
change of jaws and teeth, and, consequently, of the whole 
shape of the face. The tail, no longer needed, disappeared. 
Then, as the apes began to live in communities, social instincts 
developed, and family relations began to subsist, and the 
apes’ language of sounds developed into the language of 
men, etc. Then the brain changed its shape, and grew 
larger by its more constant use, etc. LAMARCK. 
165 
" These important ideas of Lamarck contain the first and 
oldest germs of a real history of the human tribe.” 
To give the reader, as clear an idea as possible of the 
theories of Lamarck and others of his school in a small 
compass, I will quote a summary from Dr. Edward Hitch- 
cock ("Religion of Geology,” pp. 289, 290) : "The French 
zoologist, Lamarck, first drew out and formally defended 
this hypothesis, aided by others, as Geoffrey St. Hilaire 
and Bory St. Vincent. Their supposition was that there 
is a power in nature, which they sometimes denominated 
the Deity, yet did not allow it to be intelligent and indepen- 
dent, but a mere blind, instrumental force. This power, 
they supposed, was able to produce wdiat they called monads, 
or rough draughts of animals and plants. These monads 
were the simplest of all organic beings, mere aggregations 
of matter, some of them supposed to be inherently vital. 
And such monads are the only tilings ever produced 
directly by this blind Deity. But in these monads there was 
supposed to reside an inherent tendency to progressive im- 
provement. The wants of this living mass of jelly were 
supposed to produce such effects as would gradually form 
new organs, as the hands, the feet, and the mouth. These 
changes would be aided by another principle, which they 
called the force of external circumstances, by which they 
meant the influence upon its development of its peculiar con- 
dition ; as, for instance, a conatus for Hying, produced by 
the internal principle, would form wings in birds ; a conatus 
for swimming in water would form the fins and tails of 
fishes; and a conatus for walking would form the feet and 
legs of quadrupeds. Thus the organs were not formed to 
meet the wants, but by the wants of the animal and plant. 
Of course, new wants would produce new organs ; and thus 166 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
have animals been growing more and more complicated and 
perfect from the earliest periods of geological history. Man 
began his course as a monad ; but, by the force of Lamarck’s 
two principles, has reached the most elevated rank on the 
scale of animals. His last condition before his present was 
that of the monkey tribe, especially that of the orang- 
outang.” 
Lamarck has much more of similar import, carrying out 
and developing ideas of which these are the bases ; but what 
wants first inclined these apes to give up " the habit of climb- 
ing trees,” and adopt " an upright gait,” so that their fore- 
legs became "developed into hands and arms,” and their 
" extremities were developed into true feet ” ? 
Also, how did these monads become possessed of an 
" inherent tendency to progressive improvement ” ? And 
Avhat first caused those wants which led to the formation 
of new organs ? Supposing this theory is substantially 
correct, does any one know that these so-called new organs 
did not exist in a rudimentary state before there was any 
known tendency to develop new organs ? Who knows that 
some which are now called useless rudimentary organs may 
not yet become developed into active and useful organs ? 
Did the trees cease to give the apes food, and were they 
thus obliged to resort to the ground to find food ? And is this 
the reason why they gave up their arboreal habits ? And if 
they went upon the ground for food, why should they walk 
upright, instead of upon four feet as before ? 
Again, it should be borne in mind that Lamarck com- 
pletely begs the question, for he does not show that any 
race of apes from which man might have been developed, 
existed on the earth prior to the existence of men. He seems 
to take it for granted that development is upward ; but if it DR. HITCHCOCK. 
167 
should be shown that there has also been a degeneration in 
some races as well as an upward development in other races, 
his principles might not apply here. 
Plato accounted for the degradation of the quadrupeds and 
creeping animals by the fact that their lower propensities 
naturally drew them nearer the earth. 
To show that there has been a degradation in some races, 
I will quote from Dr. Hitchcock, pp. 313, 314 : 
"'The lower Silurian,’says Sir Roderick Murchison, in 
1847, ' is no longer to be viewed as an invertebrate period ; 
for the onchus (a genus of fish) has been found in the 
Llandeilo Flags, and in the lower Silurian rocks of Bala. 
" rlt is also a most important fact, that this fish of the 
oldest rock was not, as the development scheme would 
require, of a low organization, but quite high on the scale 
of fishes. The same is true of all the earliest species of this 
class.’ ' All our most ancient fossil fishes,’ says Trofessor 
Sedwick, 'belong to a high organic type; and the very 
oldest species that are well determined fall naturally into 
an order of fishes which Owen and Muller place, not at the 
bottom, but at the top of the whole class.’ 
" This point has been fully and ably discussed by Hugh 
Miller, Esq., in his late work, ' The Footprints of the Crea- 
tor, or the Asterolepis of Stromness.’ The asterolepis was 
one of these fishes found in the old red sandstone, sometimes 
over twenty feet long; yet, says Mr. Miller, ' instead of 
being, as the development hypothesis would require, a fish 
low in its organization, it seems to have ranged on the level 
of the highest ichthyic-reptilian families ever called into 
existence.’ 
" Another point which Mr. Miller has labored hard to 
establish, and of which there seems to be no reasonable 168 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
doubt, is, that in many families of animals, not only were 
the first species that appeared of high organization, but 
there was a gradual degradation among those that were 
created afterwards. Of the fishes, generally, he says that 
'The progress of the race, as a whole, though it still retains 
not a few of the higher forms, has been a progress, not of 
development from the low to the high, but of degradation 
from the high to the low.’ .Again, he says, 'We know, as 
geologists, that the dynasty of the fish was succeeded by that 
of the reptile ; that the dynasty of the reptile was succeeded 
by that of the mammiferous quadruped; and that the 
dynasty of the mammiferous quadruped was succeeded by 
that of man, as man now exists—a creature of a mixed 
character, and subject, in all conditions, to wide alternations 
of enjoyment and suffering. We know further, —so far, 
at least, as we have succeeded in deciphering the record, 
that the several dynasties were introduced, not in their 
lower, but in their higher forms; that, in short, in the 
imposing programme of creation, it was arranged as a 
general rule, that in each of the great divisions of the pro- 
cession the magnates should walk first.’ ” 
Upon the testimony of men like the Duke of Argyll, and 
Virchow we learn that the oldest fossil human skulls yet 
discovered are of a high rather than a low order. Looking 
from this stand-point, why, in absence of proof to the con- 
trary, may we not infer that the early races of men may 
have been of a high rather than of a low order, as well as 
to receive as proved, what the rocks testify, viz., that cer- 
tain very early classes of fishes were of a high order ? 
All pertinent testimony should be carefully and dispas- 
sionately weighed, and all germane facts receive due con- 
sideration, and the strongest, most direct, and weighty RADICAL DOCTRINES. 
169 
evidence should prevail. But here is a balancing of proba- 
bilities rather than an actual weighing of positive evidence; 
for much of what some consider positive evidence may be of 
a doubtful character. What one considers positive evidence 
another may consider hypothetical. 
The evidence in favor of the general principles of evolu- 
tion appears satisfactory to a majority of the students of 
natural history, and hence the probability that these general 
principles are correct; but certain radical evolutionists assert 
that arguments nearly equivalent to a demonstration have 
already been presented, and intimate that those who cannot 
see this are lacking either in learning or intellectual ability. 
But accusations of ignorance and want of logical power 
should have no place here; for a correct decision must rest 
upon actual facts. 
If we assert that woodpeckers’ tongues are now longer 
than they were five thousand years ago (of which assump- 
tion no proof has been given), then, who gave these wood- 
peckers a disposition to stick their comparatively short 
tongues into deep and narrow crevices to get their food? 
Why, if their tongues were originally short, should they 
commence putting them into such narrow and deep crevices, 
rather than take such food as other birds sought? So with 
the humming birds, and the giraffe. Who gave the giraffe 
a disposition to reach high for its food, and thus develop 
such a long neck? 
If it is asserted that the giraffes were obliged to reach high 
among; the trees for food on account of the failure of lower 
vegetation, we want evidence that such was the case. 
What evidence have we that animals with short necks and 
which feed off the ground have not lived and their descend- 
ants been preserved in localities inhabited by these giraffes ? 170 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
Unless some such evidence can be presented, such supposi- 
tions of development are unsatisfactory because of the ab- 
sence of facts in their support. 
I have given you an epitome of these theories ; the one 
supposes that the woodpecker, and the humming-bird and 
the giraffe, were, from the commencement of their existence, 
as distinct species, peculiarly fitted for obtaining their food 
as they now do ; and being thus formed is why they now, as 
always before, obtain their food each in his own peculiar 
manner. 
The other theory supposes that the giraffes’ necks and 
the woodpeckers’ tongues were originally short, but have 
been developed to much greater length by their peculiar 
modes of getting food. 
Mivart (" Genesis of Species,” pp. 36, 37, 38) on this 
theory remarks : " But some of the cases which have been 
brought forward, and which have met with very general ac- 
ceptance, seem less satisfactory when carefully analyzed, 
than they at first appear to be. Among these we may 
mention ' the neck of the giraffe.’ 
" At first sight it would seem as though a better example in 
support of' Natural Selection ’ could hardly have been chosen. 
Let the fact of the occurrence of occasional severe droughts in 
the country which that animal has inhabited be granted. In 
that case, when the ground vegetation has been consumed, 
and the trees alone remain, it is plain that at such times only 
those individuals (of what we assume to be the nascent 
giraffe species) which were able to reach high up would be 
preserved, and would become the parents of the following 
generation, some individuals of which would, of course, in- 
herit that high-reaching power which alone preserved their 
parents. Only the high-reaching issue of these high-reach- MI V ART 
171 
ing individuals would again, coster is paribus, be preserved 
at the next drought, and would again transmit to their off- 
spring their still loftier stature; and so on, from period to 
pei’iod through aeons of time, all the individuals tending to 
revert to the ancient shorter type of body, being ruthlessly 
destroyed at the occurrence of each drought. 
"But against this it may be said, in the first place, that 
the argument proves too much ; for, on this supposition, many 
species must have tended to undergo a similar modification, and 
we ought to have at least several forms similar to the giraffe 
developed from different Ungulata. A careful observer of 
animal life, who has long resided in South Africa, explored 
the interior, and lived in the giraffe country, has assured the 
author that the giraffe has powers of locomotion and endurance 
fully equal to those possessed by any of the other Ungulata 
of that continent. It would seem, therefore, that some of 
these other Ungulates ought to have developed in a similar 
manner as to the neck, under pain of being starved, when 
the long neck of the giraffe was in its incipient stage. 
" To this criticism it has been objected that different kinds 
of animals are preserved, in the struggle for life, in very 
different ways, and even that' high reaching ’ may be attained 
in more modes than one, —as, for example, by the trunk of 
the elephant. This is, indeed, true, but then none of the 
African Ungulata have, nor do they appear ever to have had, 
any proboscis whatsoever; nor have they acquired such a 
development as to allow them to rise on their hind limbs and 
graze on trees in a kangaroo attitude, nor a power of climb- 
ing, nor, as far as known, any other modification tending to 
compensate for the comparative shortness of the neck. 
Again, it may perhaps be said that leaf-eating forms are ex- 
ceptional, and that, therefore, the struggle to attain high 172 
THE DEVELOPMENT OE LIFE. 
branches would not affect many Ungulates. But surely, 
when these severe droughts necessary for the theory occur, 
the ground vegetation is supposed to be exhausted, and in- 
deed the giraffe is quite capable of feeding from off the 
ground. So that, in these cases, the other Ungulata must 
have taken to leaf-eating or have starved, and thus must 
have had any accidental long-necked varieties favored and 
preserved exactly as the long-necked varieties of the giraffe 
are supposed to have been favored and preserved.” 
But I am told that short-necked vegetable-eating animals 
live in the same localities as the long-necked giraffes. Why 
have not these short-necked races become long-necked, or 
died out during the protracted droughts, if long necks were 
necessary to the preservation of existence ? Put these state- 
ments side by side. 
But we know that animals, under the guidance of men, have 
been developed into very strong and excellent specimens of 
their races; but there is no definite evidence that different 
breeds of domestic animals have developed themselves into 
particularly strong races without intelligent guidance outside 
of themselves ; though diversities of climate, kinds of food, 
laws of heredity, " natural selection,” and other outward 
circumstances, doubtless greatly tend to modify the character 
and strength of races of animals as well as of men. 
There is no doubt that the descendants of weak and bar- 
barous races, through the influence of food, climate, educa- 
tion, habits of living, etc., have become developed into 
strong and civilized races, nor that the descendants of strong 
and vigorous races, through bad habits of living, improper 
food, etc., may degenerate into much lower types of 
humanity. And it is probable that many of what are 
classed as different species (more properly varieties) may, DUKE OE ARGYLL. 
173 
during the ages past, have descended from some common 
ancestor. But it should be kept in mind that it is one thing 
to believe that animals and plants now classed as different 
species have descended from some common ancestor; and 
it is quite another to unhesitatingly accept the statement that 
men have been developed from an ape-like mammal. Until 
one is prepared to accept this last dogma he will by some 
be considered illogical to stop half-way on the evolutionary 
road. 
The Duke of Argyll, in "Primeval Man” (p. 39, 40), 
says : " But no such experience ever comes to us casting any 
light on the Origin of our own Race, or of any other. Some 
varieties of form are effected, in the case of a few animals, 
by domestication, and by constant care in the selection of 
peculiarities transmissible to the young. But these varia- 
tions are all within certain limits ; and, wherever human care 
relaxes or is abandoned, the old forms return, and the 
selected characters disappear. The founding of new forms 
by the union of different species, even when standing in close 
natural relation to each other, is absolutely forbidden by the 
sentence of sterility which Nature pronounces and enforces 
upon all hybrid offspring. And so it results that man has 
never seen the origin of any species. Creation by birth is 
the only kind of creation he has ever seen; and from this 
kind of creation he has never seen a new species come.” 
The world is full of analogies, and we can learn much 
from these if we rightly interpret them. A tree, for in- 
stance, in physical construction, is, in a general way, a type 
of the physical construction of many species of animals. 
Even a leaf is a type of the tree and of a vertebrate animal. 
Most leaves have a vertebral column, ribs, etc., and a 
breathing apparatus. 174 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
How similar the construction of a pod of the common pea 
to the body of a man ! It has a vertebral column and ribs, 
and the peas themselves are located in a manner similar to 
the viscera and reproductive organs of vertebrate animals. 
How strangely like living actions are the operations of 
frost in making the appearance of leaves upon the window- 
glass ! Can that which forms these frost-leaves be the same 
force as that which forms the leaves upon the trees, which 
they so much resemble? 
When we say a tree is a physical type of animated nature, 
we refer to its structure, growth, and vital properties ; for 
trees and animals are developed from germs in a precisely 
similar manner, and in their secretion and exhalations they 
are wonderfully similar. 
But, if animals and men have been developed from an 
original one-celled ancestor, it seems to me that there must 
have been a preexisting vital principle to give life to the 
monera, or they would have never existed as living organ- 
isms. We can easily understand what is generally meant 
by the term r spontaneous generation.” 
I might rest here with a flat denial of this foundation 
principle till some one could show us that ” spontaneous 
generation ” now takes place. But many are accustomed to 
connect a theory and its starting-point together, not per- 
ceiving that it is possible for a theory to be correct after it 
has left its starting-point, while the very foundation on which 
the starting-point rests may be perfectly unreliable. 
The starting-point, " spontaneous generation,” appears to 
have no actual basis, as the experiments of M. Pasteur, 
Tyndall and others have proved. 
But if we recognize the existence of an almighty creative 
intelligence, and allow that this creative power was the RESEMBLANCES. 
175 
cause of life, all seems to follow naturally and logically to the 
final conclusion. 
All animated forms indeed bear a resemblance in certain 
particulars. Thus when we are told that the chick in the 
egg, from the commencement of incubation to the time it 
breaks its shell and runs free, is a type of the development 
of the embryo in all the higher forms of animal life, we hear 
what is doubtless true. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the theory is very plausible, 
it by no means follows that, because during the forty weeks 
preceding the birth of a human child stages typical of or 
similar to certain different races that have existed or now 
exist among the lower orders of creation are passed 
through, therefore man is descended through races of 
O ' o 
animals, of which these changes in the embryo are a 
type. 
It by no means follows that, because oxen and horses are 
quite similar in their general physical structure and disposi- 
tions, therefore, they must have descended from some com- 
mon ancestor. 
If we are to deal in assumptions or presumptions, why 
may we not as well assume, as our fathers did, that the 
Creator originally designed all animal life on one general 
plan, but with almost infinite variations? 
It should be borne in mind, however, in regard to the 
origin of life, that Darwin disagrees with Hasckel; for 
Darwin did not intimate that he believed in " spontaneous 
generation,” but acknowledged that the Creator originally 
breathed the breath of life into the " original forms or form 
of life.” 
By the term " bona species ” Agassiz meant absolutely 
different races which do not interbreed, and not those which 176 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
are similar, like the wolf and the dog, which do interbreed 
and produce a progeny of wolf-dogs. 
Dr. Eheckel charges (p. 116), that "The divine Creator, 
as represented by Agassiz, is but an idealized man, a 
highly imaginative architect, who is always preparing new 
building plans and elaborating new species.” 
If the Creator, or this underlying invisible Power, is in His 
nature incomprehensible (as I believe He is), how does any 
one know that the much-ridiculed " anthropomorphic concep- 
tions ” are entirely incorrect ? Why assume that particular 
" conceptions ” of Him are essentially wrong, while we can- 
not tell whether such conceptions are correct or incorrect ? 
When one assumes that he knows that the Creator cannot 
exist and act in certain ways, does he not, by that very 
assumption, virtually claim that he can tell how He may exist 
and act? Does not such an assumption virtually set a limit 
to the .powers of the Creator ? 
Why may not the Creator (if He chooses), work on new 
creations now as well as in the beginning ? New varieties 
of living creatures are being discovered. Who knows that 
some of these are not new creations ? Who knows that new 
worlds are not now in process of construction ? Who knows 
that comets are not the nuclei around which, aeons hence, 
new worlds may be in process of construction ? If the solar 
system was evolved from cosmic vapor, and was aeons in 
being consolidated, why may not cosmic vapor still exist 
which is not yet consolidated, from which other worlds may 
yet be constructed? Possibly the earth may have been con- 
structed or consolidated millions of ages subsequent to the 
construction of the great suns which we call the fixed stars. 
Does any man know to the contrary? Has the Creator 
become so tired that Pie must rest, and let all the mighty HiECKEL. 
177 
powers and forces of nature run without His personal super- 
vision? Why should those who deny the existence of a 
personal almighty intelligence, claim exclusive knowledge of 
the mysteries of our existence? 
Again, on these questions of our descent, when reasoning 
from peculiarities of our physical organism, we may well 
suppose that physiologists know something. Yet Haeckel 
says (p. 20, vol. 1, "Evolution of Man ”) : "Physiology, 
however, has, especially during the last twenty years, been 
far more one-sided in its progress than Morphology. Not 
only has it entirely neglected to apply the comparative 
method, by which Morphology has gained its greatest results, 
but it has altogether disregarded the History of Evolution.” 
Also (on p. 21), he says : "Indeed the direction at present 
taken by Physiology is so one-sided that it has even 
neglected the recognition of the most important functions of 
Evolution, namely, Heredity and Adaptation, and has left 
this entirely physiological task to morphologists.” 
This is a virtual confession that physiologists have not 
generally received to their full extent the doctrines of evo- 
lution. 
Many have adopted these doctrines in their general appli- 
cation ; but not so many as radical evolutionists claim have 
adopted them in their full extent. Physiologists are slow to 
do so. But the general principles which underlie the popular 
development theory are very ingeniously explained, and the 
" spontaneous generation ” part of the theory is peculiarly 
palatable to such as would vote the Creator out of existence. 
And yet, if the Creator has chosen to create and develop men 
according to the theory of Darwin or Haeckel, or even 
according to the theories of their most radical disciples, who 
shall question His right or power to do so ? 178 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
Another reason why some receive the radical development 
theories may be seen by looking at the history of scientific 
theories for the past two thousand years. When new and 
startling theories have been broached, they have created a 
sort of philosophic craze, and the vagaries have their run, 
like a fever, till burned out, or till some succeeding theory 
swallows up the preceding. 
It is now in some respects as it was in the days of 
Paul, many want "to hear or tell some new thing," and 
if enough that is new cannot be found in the real, then 
something new must be invented. Or, as Huxley said, 
when referring to the ingenuity displayed by Haeckel in 
his "History of the Creation,” "Whether one agrees or 
disagrees with him, one feels that he has forced the mind 
into new lines of thought in which it is more profitable 
to go wrong than to stand still.” So a great many now 
are better pleased to receive unproved theories than to 
stand still. 
It has often been asked, if species do interchange, or so 
develop as to become radically different races, why have we 
not some evidence during the past four thousand years that 
some one species has changed into or towards some other 
specific species ? Why, since evolutionists are so particular 
about facts from experience, or experimental knowledge, do 
they not show facts to prove their theory, instead of pointing 
to so many analogies, and asserting that these establish their 
theory ? 
It is true that during thousands of ages, in geologic time, by 
an almost infinite number of accretions of infinitesimal differ- 
ences, animals may, and probably have, essentially changed 
in construction and appearance, when so short a time as four 
thousand years might make no appreciable difference. But, 179 
LAW OF BIOGENY. 
admitting that this may be probable, the burden of proof 
still rests upon the evolutionists. 
One sti'ong point of Dr. Haeckel’s theory, and one which 
he repeats over and over again, is what he calls, "the funda- 
mental law of organic evolution, or the first principle of 
biogeny ” (pp. 6, 7), and it is thus expressed: "The series 
of forms through which the individual organism passes 
during its progress from the egg-cell to its fully-developed 
state, is a brief, compressed reproduction of the long series 
of forms through which the animal ancestors of that organism 
(or the ancestral forms of its species) have passed from the 
earliest periods of so called organic creation down to the 
present time.” 
This is his law, and it is clearly enough expressed, and it 
is the very corner-stone of his fabric. And it must be con- 
fessed that he has made this theory appear very plausible; 
but if he could prove that the changes which the chick in the 
shell goes through are an exact type of all the changes which 
the chick’s mature ancestors have gone through during the 
millions of years since it came (through the process of 
development) from an original one-celled ancestor, then 
his whole case would be proved, and it would be useless to 
combat it. But he assumes the very fact that needs to be 
proved. How does he know that these changes in the chick 
are a type of its previous ancestors through the many stages 
of development? He mentions certain facts that seem to 
point in that direction. But is that proof? No. The 
whole theory rests upon assumption ; but no man can tell for 
a certainty whether it is a true or a false assumption. 
The point under consideration is important, for it is fun- 
damental. One school asserts that the changes in the 
human embryo are a type of the mature animals of the 180 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
ancestral races through which, by the process of develop- 
ment, men have descended. 
One can readily see, by following out analogies which we 
find in nature, from the smallest particles of matter which 
we can discover with the microscope to the planets them- 
selves, that there are striking resemblances, and that there 
are certain general laws applicable to all. All nature in 
its action seems like a wheel within a wheel; but Ido not see 
why we should assume that the development of the chick in 
its shell and the development of the human embryo should 
be like the progressive stages of development which the 
mature ancestors of the embryo or chick have passed through 
in each succeeding generation from their original ancestors, 
any more than the development of the chick in the shell 
should be typical of the growth of the chick from the time 
of hatching through the whole of its remaining physical 
existence, or from its birth to its death. 
I would not raise objections against the plausibility of 
this " Law of Biogeny ; ” but it is the positiveness with which 
its truth is asserted which troubles me. I simply protest 
against drawing positive and sweeping conclusions too 
hastily from insufficient data. 
But, if it be shown that the human embryo is never like 
any mature animal, but is simply like another embryo, 
then the doctrine of this equivalence, or general agreement 
with other races, is greatly weakened. 
Now let us see what competent naturalists assert. Ac- 
cording to K. E. von Baer, as quoted by Agassiz 
("Classification,” pp. 351, 352), "the results at which 
K. E. von Baer had arrived by his embryological in- 
vestigations respecting the fundamental relations existing 
among animals, differed considerably from the ideas then K. E. VON BAER. 
181 
prevailing. In order, therefore, to be correctly understood, 
he begins, with his accustomed accuracy and clearness, to 
present a condensed account of those opinions with which 
he disagreed, in these words: 'Few views of the relations 
existing in the organic world have received so much appro- 
bation as this : that the higher animal forms in the several 
stages of the development of the individual, from the be- 
ginning of its existence to its complete formation, corre- 
spond to the permanent forms in the animal series, and that 
the development of the several animals follows the same 
laws as those of the entire animal series ; that, consequently, 
the most highly organized animal, in its individual develop- 
ment, passes, in all that is essential, through the stages that 
are permanent below it, so that the periodical differences of 
the individual may be reduced to the differences of the per- 
manent animal forms.’” 
Now let us see what von Baer did find from his investi- 
gations (p. 857, Agassiz). He says, "Comparing these 
four types with the embryonic development, von Baer 
shows that there is only a general similarity between the 
lower animals and the embryonic stages of the higher ones, 
arising mainly from the absence of differentiation in the 
body, and not from a typical resemblance. The embryo 
does not pass from one type to the other ; on the contrary, 
the type of each animal is defined from the beginning, and 
controls the whole development. The embryo of the Ver- 
tebrate is a Vertebrate from the beginning, and does not 
exhibit at any time a correspondence with the Invertebrate. 
The embryos of Vertebrates do not pass, in their develop- 
ment, through other permanent types of animals. The fun- 
damental type is first developed, and afterwards more and 
more subordinate characters appear. From a more general 182 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
type the more special is manifested; and the more two 
forms of animals differ, the earlier must their development 
be traced back to discern an agreement between them. It 
is barely possible that, in their first beginning, all animals 
are alike, and present only hollow spheres ; but the individ- 
ual development of the higher animals certainly does not 
pass through the permanent forms of lower ones. What is 
common in a higher group of animals is always sooner de- 
veloped in their embryos than what is special; out of that 
which is most general arises that which is less general, until 
that which is most special appears. Each embryo of a given 
type of animals, instead of passing through other definite 
types, becomes, on the contrary, more and more unlike them. 
An embryo of a higher type is, therefore, never identical 
with another animal type, but only with an embryo.” 
If von Baer was correct in this statement then those who 
have stated that the human embryos pass through all the 
essential distinctive characteristics which remain permanent 
in the species which are below it must be in error; and thus, 
this would seem to be in opposition to Hasckel’s " Law of 
Biogeny.” Other learned naturalists besides Agassiz agree 
with von Baer. Prof. Orton (p. 201, "Comp. Zoology”) 
says : " At the outset, all animals, from the sponge to man, 
are indistinguishable from one another. They are mainly 
drops of fluid, a little more transparent on one side than the 
other; and, in all cases, this almost homogeneous globule 
must develop three well-defined parts, a germinal dot, 
germinal vesicle, and yolk. But while vertebrates and in- 
vertebrates can travel together on the same road up to this 
point, here they diverge, never to meet again. For, every 
grand group early shows that it has a peculiar type of con- 
struction. Every egg is from the first impressed with the SIMILARITIES. 
183 
power of developing in one direction only, and never does it 
lose its fundamental characters.” 
Let us, however, not forget what has been before stated, 
that, on account of the general peculiarities which, with 
numerous variations, run through the whole universality of 
living things, it may not be unreasonable to suppose that the 
law of organic evolution may embody types of all living 
beings which have ever existed or ever will exist; and that 
the development of an acorn into an oak, or a chick into a 
fowl may in some respects be typical of the development of 
all animated nature ever since animated nature existed. 
That resemblances should run through nature in all its 
forms is indeed wonderful; but, the more wonderful this is, 
the greater the necessity for the existence of an intelligent 
worker to make all things in such similar correspondence, 
even to the certainty of the shape of the various crystals 
formed by the evaporation of solutions. The perfectly un- 
varying laws that govern all things appear to be the work 
of some infinitely high intelligence. 
But, if the changes passed through during the forty weeks 
necessary for the development of the human embryo to a 
perfect infant, or the three weeks for the development of the 
chick in the shell, or the uncertain or indefinite time during 
which an acorn develops into an oak, are partial types of the 
arrangements of all animated nature, that does not by any 
means prove that present species of animals have been 
developed out of radically different species of animals ; nor 
does it by any means show that the human race must have 
passed through a line of ancestral forms similar to all the 
changes which take place in the embryo before the perfect 
human physical system is developed. 
There are several stubborn facts which seem to indicate 184 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
that the theory of the descent of man through apes is not 
correct. De Quatrefages states that the angle of the 
sphenoid bone, or the bone upon which the brain rests, con- 
stantly grows less as the human approaches manhood; while 
in the apes, the angle of this bone grows larger, averaging 
about twenty-seven degrees greater in mature apes than in 
infant apes. And he adds ("Human Species,” p..380) : 
" I have already insisted that facts of this nature are irrecon- 
cilable with those theories which attribute a more or less 
pithecoid ancestor to man.” 
Peschel says (p. 4 "Races of Man ”) : " Finally, the early 
disappearance of the intermaxillary bone in the human in- 
fant may be cited as a distinction from the apes. 
" These last facts oblige us to glance at the evolutionary 
history of man, which has gained great importance since 
Johann Friedrich Meckel, of Halle, asserted, in 1812, that 
every animal in its immature condition (and this lasts from 
the fecundation of the egg to the first sexual functions) 
passes through all the forms which occur during the entire 
life of the animals of every grade beneath it. 
" At the time of birth the gap between the child and the 
young of the ape is as yet very narrow. The brains of 
children and young apes approach very closely in size, but 
of all parts of the body the brain of the ape grows the least. 
Thus, although the brain of the anthropomorphous ape con- 
tains all the main parts of the human skull, its development, 
nevertheless, assumes quite another direction.” . 
" Before the change of teeth has begun, the brain of the ape 
has usually attained its completion, whereas, in the child its 
proper development is just then actively beginning. 
"In the apes, on the contrary, the facial bones grow in 
an animal direction, so that finally the largest ape has the VIRCHOW. 
185 
brain of a child and the jaws of an ox. Thence it follows 
that a man would never originate from the progressive evolu- 
tion of the apes, for their development is directed to different 
ends, and the longer they advance towards these ends the 
greater are the contrasts.” 
Prof. Yirchow, in an address at Munich, before quoted 
from (according to Billing, p. 79, "Scientific Material- 
ism”) , said : " I should not be alarmed if proof were found 
that the ancestors of man were vertebrated animals. I work 
by preference in the field of anthropology ; yet I must declare 
that every step of positive progress which we have made in 
the domain of prehistoric anthropology has really moved 
further away from the proof of this connection. Cuvier 
maintained in the quaternary period man did not exist; but 
now quaternary man is a real doctrine, tertiary man a 
problem, and yet there are questions in discussion for the 
existence of man during the tertiary period. Even ecclesi- 
astics admit, as Bourgeois, that man existed in the tertiary 
period. Quaternary fossil man we find just the same as our- 
selves. Only ten years ago, when a skull was. found in 
peat, or in the lake dwellings, a wild and undeveloped state 
was seen in it. We were then scenting monhey air, but 
these old troglodytes turn out to be quite respectable society. 
Our French neighbors warn us not to count too much on 
these big heads ; it may be possible the old brains had more 
intermediary tissue than those of the now day, and that 
their nerve substance, notwithstanding the size of the 
receptacle, remained at a low state of development. Com- 
paring the total of fossil men found with the existing 
types, we find that, in the present, there is relatively a 
much larger number of lower types than there were in 
that period. 186 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
" In the fossil types the lower developments are absolutely 
wanting. That only the higher geniuses of the quaternary 
period were preserved I dare not suppose, but this can be 
said, that one fossil monkey skull or ape-man has never been 
found. It is possible in some special spot on earth tertiary 
man lived, for the remarkable discovery of the fossil ancestors 
of the horse in America, from which the horse had entirely 
disappeared, gives countenance to the idea. It may be that 
tertiary man has existed in Greenland or Lemuria and will 
be brought to light somewhere or other. We cannot teach, 
we cannot designate it as a revelation of science, that 
man descends from the ape or a?iy other animal. Bacon 
said, with perfect truth, ' scientia est potentia’ (knowledge 
is power) ; but the knowledge he meant was not specu- 
lative, not the knowledge of problems, but the objective 
knowledge of facts. We should abuse and endanger our 
power if, in our teaching, we do not fall back upon 
this perfectly justified, perfectly safe, and impregnable 
domain.” 
There is no reliable evidence that apes from which 
men could be developed lived before man existed. If 
they did not so exist, how can man be descended from 
them? If they did so exist, why has not a fossil monkey 
or ape-man’s skull ever been found? Such remains may 
yet be found; but until they are found, the acceptance 
of the above theory of descent must be received as 
provisional only. 
What is stated to be fact in the above can be safely con- 
sidered fact, and one fact is worth more than a score of 
scientific suppositions. Another stubborn fact that seems to 
go against the Darwinian theory of human descent is, that 
man, in the very earliest stages of his existence, even to the PKIMEVAL MAN. 
187 
oldest skeleton ever discovered, shows no greater resemblance 
to the apes than present races of men do. The Duke of 
Argyll, as previously quoted, says (p. 73, " Primeval 
Man”) : " The other skeleton, respecting which the evidence 
of extreme antiquity is the strongest, is not only perfectly 
human in all its proportions, but its skull has a cranial 
capacity not inferior to that of many modern Europeans. 
This most ancient of all known human skulls is so ample in 
its dimensions that it might have contained the brains of a 
philosopher.” 
The point mentioned by Virchow concerning man in the 
tertiary period is of importance; but, even supposing that 
man dates back no farther than the quarternary period, one is 
naturally inclined to ask a mathematical question, viz., if 
we go back 30,000 to 50,000 years, and find that at that 
time there was a smaller proportion of individual men of a 
low type than there is at the present time, how far back must 
we go to make a connection between men and apes ? It is 
one thing to be possible, and quite another to be probable ; 
and even probability falls very far short of proof. Is it fair 
and philosophical to claim that a mere hypothesis is already 
equivalent to a fact, because no one has yet been able to 
show that the hypothesis is not founded in fact? It is 
common for parties to make rash statements, and then, 
if no one can show that these statements are actually 
untrue, to claim that they have shown them to be true. 
Thus a thousand statements may be made concerning which 
no demonstrations exist either for or against; but what do 
such statements amount to? Is it not unphilosophical to 
claim all things which are uncertain to be on our side of the 
argument? Suppose one should lay claim to all property, 
real and personal, concerning which there is uncertainty of 188 
THE DEVELOPMENT OE LIFE. 
ownership,—how would that work? Thus, in arguments, 
the class of uncertain claims should have its due weight; but 
its due weight, in many cases, amounts to about zero. Some 
one has said that it will not do to tell school-boys that some 
things are certain and others uncertain ; for they will get 
things mixed, and believe the facts to be the uncertain things, 
and some of the uncertain things to be facts ; but when we 
are talking to educated men, or to philosophers, it will do to 
confess that there are many things which we do not know 
for a certainty. I trust my readers will be so much like 
philosophers that they will not mistake the uncertain things 
for the certain, or reject positive facts, and receive as facts 
things which are uncertain. Certain Avriters have accused 
the believers in a creative theory Avith accepting absurd 
notions. Can there be greater folly, while the atheistic are 
themselves ignorant of the character or mode of existence of 
that almighty force or power which underlies all the mani- 
festations and phenomena of life? Man has the highest 
intelligence of any being concerning whom they have positive 
knowledge. How can they, in their own minds, form a con- 
ception of an intelligent being, acting from reason, who does 
not reason in a manner somewhat similar to the reasonings 
of the most intelligent men? They extol reason, and call it 
the only unerring guide. Why then, should not the highest 
intelligence we can conceive of work also in accordance with 
some unerring guide? 
I am aware that Omniscience may have no need of any 
process of reasoning; for, knowing all things, He must be 
without the necessity for any course of reasoning; yet I 
cannot understand how Omniscience and Omnipotence com- 
bined should have ordained and established the immutable 
laws of nature without some reasons for so doing. INFINITE INTELLIGENCE. 
189 
Could we conceive of a man with infinite intelligence, 
would he not be likely to reason in some respects as a finite 
being does ? How do we know that finite reason may not be 
in some respects typical of infinite reason ? Let the wisest 
show us the actual truth concerning infinite wisdom and 
intelligence, if he can. 190 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
CHAPTEE YIII. 
DOES LIFE INHERE IN MATTER ITSELF? 
It would seem to ordinary observers that there must be a 
distinct line between the dead and the living. Hseckel denies 
that such a line exists in such a sense as is generally supposed. 
Others have, in substance, stated that organic and inorganic 
matter shade into, or so intermingle with each other that no 
distinct line between the dead and the living can be drawn. 
If asked to state upon what facts they base the opinion 
that there is no absolute vital difference between dead and 
living matter, they may cite the ultimate atoms, and assume 
that they are endowed with the principle of life, providing 
there be such a thing as a life principle. They might also 
mention the theory of Leibnitz in relation to monads. 
Leibnitz believed monads to be mathematical points, —r' the 
simple active elements of things, the veritable, living atoms 
of nature, the immaterial, indivisible and final forces of the 
universe.” 
He held that both mind and matter are composed of monads, 
but that mind is represented by conscious monads, and matter 
by unconscious monads. "But these two classes of monads 
are wholly unlike, and exert no influence on each other,” a 
conclusion to which materialists will hardly assent. 
If all the original and ultimate atoms are alike, and en- 
dowed with the same properties, then the living and the dead 
are composed of these atoms. 
Materialists do not acknowledge a vital principle separate NEEDHAM AND BUEFON. 
191 
from matter, but consider life merely a result of the action 
of matter ; or that life is a mere condition or process depend- 
ing entirely upon the action of matter. Following out this 
idea, some consider death to he simply a molecular change. 
A similar idea of death is mentioned by Huxley in connection 
with the opinions of Needham and Buffon. Needham, how- 
ever, believed in indestructible living particles of matter, 
as distinguished from non-living particles. Huxley (pp. 
355, 356, " Lay Sermons ” ) states Needham’s opinions as 
follows ; " Life is the indefeasible property of certain inde- 
structible molecules of matter, which exist in all living things, 
and have inherent activities by which they are distinguished 
from not living matter. Each individual living organism is 
formed by their temporary combination. They stand to it 
in the relation of the particles of water to a cascade or a 
whirlpool; or to a mould into which the water is poured. 
" The form of the organism is thus determined by the re- 
action between external conditions and the inherent activi- 
ties of the organic molecules of which it is composed; and, 
as the stoppage of a whirlpool destroys nothing but a form, 
and leaves the molecules of the water, with all their inherent 
activities intact, so what we call the death and putrefaction 
of an animal, or of a plant, is merely the breaking up of the 
form, or manner of association, of its constituent organic 
molecules, which are then set free as infusorial animalcules. 
" It will be perceived that this doctrine is by no means 
identical with Abiogenesis, with which it is often confounded. 
On this hypothesis, a piece of beef, or a handful of hay, is 
dead only in a limited sense. The beef is dead ox, and the 
hay is dead grass ; but the " organic molecules ” of the beef 
or the hay are not dead, but are ready to manifest their 
vitality as soon as the bovine or herbaceous shroud in which 192 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
they are imprisoned are rent by the macerating action of 
water.” 
Various other like theories seem to be intertangled to a 
great extent, and may live to be discussed ages hence; but 
the science of modern chemistry has dispelled these illusions 
of Needham and Buffon, and probably further investigation 
will demonstrate the untenableness of many other opinions 
on this point. 
In some cases it is extremely difficult to tell just where 
this line between life and death is drawn. In certain cases, 
it may be impossible to distinguish between organic and in- 
organic matter, even with the most powerful microscopes; 
for the organic matter may have lines of structure so fine 
that we cannot discover them, and living organisms may be 
so minute that we cannot discover them. Organic matter 
may be structureless. 
It may be impossible in some cases to tell whether or- 
o-anic matter is dead or alive. But because not obvious 
no one has a right to assume that this distinction does not 
O 
exist. 
If we break a piece from a block of marble the piece 
we take off remains of the same quality as it originally was. 
The separation does not change the quality or manner of 
its existence ; but if we break a branch from a living plant 
or tree how soon this branch changes, and the difference 
between the living and the dead branch appears. The 
marble statue is largely composed of the remains of once 
living beings. But when one states that organic jpid inor- 
ganic matter are equally living, if the organic matter is in liv- 
ing animals, we see the inaccuracy of the statement. But 
when the statement is made concerning what we cannot 
readily class, though the dividing line may be absolute, it GRINDON. 
193 
makes a vast difference with many as to the truth or falsity 
of the statement. The following passage, taken from Leo 
H. Grindon, gives his idea of life as manifested in inorganic 
nature ("Life, Its Nature, etc.” pp. 23, 24) : 
" That life does not necessarily imply organization or repro- 
duction is shown in what may without impropriety be called 
the Life of the World. Doubtless, there is an impassable 
chasm between the mineral and the vegetable, as between the 
vegetable and the animal, and between the animal and man. 
But this inorganic nature, which is represented as ' dead,’ 
because it has not the same life with the animal or plant, is 
it then, to quote Guyot, destitute of all life? It has all 
the signs of life, we cannot but confess. Has it not motion 
in the water which streams and murmurs on the surface of 
the continents, and which tosses in the waves of the sea? 
Has it not sympathies and antipathies in those mysterious 
elective affinities of the molecules of matter which chemistry 
investigates ? Has it not the powerful attractions of bodies 
to each other which govern the motions of the stars scattered 
in the immensity of space, and keep them in an admirable 
harmony ? Do we not see, and always with a secret astonish- 
ment, the magnetic needle agitated at the approach of a par- 
ticle of iron, and leaping under the fire of the Northern Light ? 
Place any material body whatever by the side of another, do 
they not immediately enter into relations of interchange, of 
molecular attraction, of electricity, of magnetism? In the 
inorganic part of matter, as in the organic, all is acting, all 
is promoting change, all is itself undergoing transformation. 
And thus, though this life of the globe, this physiology of 
our planet, is not the life of the tree or the bird, is it not 
also a life? Assuredly it is. We cannot refuse so to call 
those lively actions and reactions, that perpetual play of the 194 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
forces of matter, of which we are every day the witnesses. 
The thousand voices of nature which make themselves heard 
around us, and in so many ways betoken incessant and pro- 
digious activity, proclaim it so loudly that we cannot shut 
our ears to their language.” 
Though the above extracts indicate that Grindon and 
Guyot believed, in certain respects, that there are manifesta- 
tions like those called living in inorganic matter, yet they 
by no means intend to imply that the life of men, plants 
and minerals is the same ; for Grindon further says, p. 24: 
"Indeed the life of the soul, or that which is played forth as 
the activity of the intellect and the affections, is the highest 
expression of all. Compared with this life, the life of ani- 
mals and plants, and the life of the globe, are but mimicries 
and shadows.” 
Grindon calls what is usually termed Life, " physiological 
life ; ” but when he attempts to account for the origin of life 
he says (p. 29) : "God is the only independent existence, 
and He is the cause of all causes. He alone has life in him- 
self.” 
And on p. 40 he further says : "Inorganic life, the first 
named of these three great varieties or manifestations of the 
vitalizing principle, has been illustrated in the preceding 
chapters. It will suffice to add here that it has nothing in 
common with organic or physiological life, much less with 
the spiritual; nothing, that is to say, except the Divine origin 
and sustentation.” 
We shall soon see to what errors the following out an 
assumed theory may lead us. As before quoted, Hasckel 
says (p. 23, vol. 1, "History of Creation”) : " When in a solu- 
tion of salt a crystal is formed, the phenomenon is neither 
more nor less a mechanical manifestation of life than the HiECKEL’S PHILOSOPHY. 
195 
growth and flowering of plants, than the propagation of 
animals or the activity of their senses, than the perception 
or the formation of thought in man.” 
Though this extract does not, in so many words., state that 
the quality of life in minerals, plants and animals is the 
same, yet the idea seems to be that as the mechanical actions in 
minerals and plants are alike, or very similar, the vital 
properties are also alike. 
In this view of life Haeckel’s philosophy is strikingly simi- 
lar to that of vai’ious savage tribes. For instance, the Zuni 
Indians are said to believe that all motion reveals a sign of 
life; hence, behind the swaying branches of trees and the 
rolling of waves on the waters, they recognize a living 
personality, or life, as the cause of these motions, I have 
before stated that in animals and plants the nutriment goes 
from outside to inside by a motion peculiar to life, and 
entirely dissimilar to the formation of crystals; and, when 
this nutriment has been used, the waste in animals goes, by 
a peculiar motion, from inside to outside, and this action is 
continuous. Crystals grow by the aggregation of crystalline 
particles lodging on the outside, which forms them into 
particular shapes, and so long as the crystals do not dissolve 
or decompose, no action or change of place occurs in these 
particles. The growth is so unlike living growth that for 
a sane man to assert that they are governed by the same 
principles seems very strange. The act of crystallization 
cannot justly be called a living action. There are some, 
however, who clutch at a statement like the above, viz., that 
organic and inorganic matter are equally living, and receive 
it as profound truth. This class of philosophers, or rather 
speculators in science, has existed since early historic times. 
Some have done much to stimulate inquiry, and thus sharpen 196 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
the intellect through its effort to separate truth from error 
and fact from fiction. 
Briefly stated this philosophy amounts to this : That life is 
merely an adjustment of relations, and that the difference be- 
tween the living and non-living is one of degree, but not of 
kind ; that life, to some extent, inheres in everything, or in 
every material substance; and that the action of the heart 
as well as the circulation of the blood is only an exhibition 
of mechanical force just as really as the operations of a 
steam-engine; and that the original driving forces are one 
and the same. But such do not seem to consider that the 
steam-engine may be stopped, and take a lengthened rest, 
and then be started up again without any detriment to its 
powers. Not so with the action of the heart. When that 
has once fairly ceased its action that action is never resumed ; 
when it has once really ceased to beat for five consecutive 
minutes its action has forever ceased. We know that there 
is a mechanical action of the heart; but there is a vital prin- 
ciple behind its normal action. Materialists may deny the 
existence of this vital principle ; but mere denial has no 
real force. Badcliffe (as quoted by S. Billing, " Scientific 
Materialism,” p. 13) says, "We can only suppose that the 
vital fact exemplifies its energy by physical means in its 
application to the animal economy. Whatever be the 
physics of the mechanism, they can but be conducted by 
waste. The vital energy using them as its methods repairs 
the waste, and thus excludes all idea of physical force 
(per se) being the initiatory impulse. 
"If vital action resulted alone in mechanical motion it 
might be said that muscular force was physical force; but 
no physical force reproduces itself.” WHENCE IS LIFE? 
197 
If physical force could reproduce itself, we might easily 
solve the problem of perpetual motion. 
From a great multitude of facts gathered, and inferences 
deduced from investigation, Haeckel weaves what to him and 
many others seems a beautiful web of truth. But he has taken 
premises in the unknown, and hence is likely to err, because 
he does not know whether or not the principles on which he 
has built his foundations are resting upon absolute truth. 
His followers (and they are legion) contend that there was 
originally in matter itself the power to originate life. 
This theory dispenses with the necessity of a Creator ; for, 
if matter is eternal, and has in itself the power to originate 
life, then there would not appear to be any necessity for 
a self-existent life (which was originally independent of 
matter) to cause the manifestations of life which we see in 
matter. 
Geologists state that the earth, during its early existence, 
was so hot that no life could exist on it. It was then simply 
dead matter, though later on plant life existed when no 
animal could live. But life, both plant and animal, now 
exists. Whence did this life come ? How did it spring into 
existence? Did the dead matter of the earth, in itself, have 
power to originate life? In other words, did that which was 
dead have power to bring into existence what it did not 
itself possess, viz., life? If it did, did it not create some- 
thing out of nothing? But the philosophic maxim is, 
''From nothing, nothing comes.” 
There seems no way to obviate this difficulty, without 
acknowledging a Creator, except to assume that all natural 
bodies are equally living; and thus at the time when we 
suppose the earth was simply dead matter it was not so, 
but that the life-giving power was already there. What 198 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
warrant is there for such an assumption? On the contrary, 
did not a vital principle move on this dead matter, and trans- 
form inorganic matter into organic, or living matter? 
It has been stated that Liebig assumed that dead matter 
can produce fermentation ; but, as Tyndall well says : " With 
Liebig, fermentation was by no means synonymous with life. 
It meant, according to him, the shaking asunder by chemical 
disturbance of unstable molecules. Does the life of our 
flasks, then, proceed from dead particles? If my co-inquirer 
should reply 'Yes,’ then I would ask him, 'What warrant 
does Nature offer for such an assumption ? Where, amid the 
multitude of vital phenomena in which her operations have 
been clearly traced, is the slightest countenance given to the 
notion that the sowing of dead particles can produce a 
living crop?’” (p. 296, "Floating Matter.”) 
No one has yet clearly described the line that separates 
life from death ; hence, in this case, even with the most 
learned, analogy and common-sense must be strong witnesses. 
When we take into consideration the facts which we have 
before stated, and which seem to show that life is the cause 
of organization, we must conclude that life had its original 
beginning in some power outside of and above mere matter. 
To say that life was originally evolved by chemical processes 
which occurred during the long ages while the earth was 
cooling is a mere supposition, for there are no known facts 
to substantiate that statement. 
Light, heat, electricity and moisture are mighty instru- 
mentalities, and, operating on organic matter, produce great 
and beneficent changes, and also great modifications of the 
O 7 JD 
forms of life. But to produce modifications is one thing, 
and to produce a new creation is quite another. There must 
have been a beginning somewhere or somehow, and the MICROSCOPIC OBSERVATIONS. 
199 
reasoning mind wants more than guesswork to satisfy it in 
its inquiries. 
The germs of life are everywhere ; in the air we breathe, 
in the dust beneath our feet, and in the depths of the sea. 
Where did these germs of life come from ? 
Living animals only one ninety-thousandth of an inch in 
diameter can be seen; but who can tell how much smaller 
living creatures there may be which cannot be seen with the 
microscope? As Nature is infinite in extension, so she may 
also be in minuteness. 
Infusions of hay, and of turnip, and of a score of other 
articles, have been boiled, with the intent of destroying all 
life contained in them. These infusions were put in glass 
bottles, and hermetically sealed ; but in a few days they were 
found teeming with living organisms. Where did these 
organisms come from? 
From a great number of like experiments, made on both 
sides of the Atlantic, some learned men came to the conclu- 
sion that these living beings came by " spontaneous genera- 
tion,” or (perhaps more properly expressed) that this new 
life was evolved from dead matter, and that new life is 
being now constantly evolved by the power of nature alone. 
So extensive and various have these experiments been that 
it is not safe to turn these trials, tests, and conclusions off 
without consideration. 
It is with pleasure, however, that I can say that the labors 
of M. Pasteur, a French chemist, and of Prof. Tyndall, 
aided by experiments of other able and careful scientists dur- 
ing the past fifteen years, have almost entirely revolutionized 
what was the commonly received scientific opinion twenty 
years since in regard to this theory of " spontaneous genera- 
tion ; ” and the germ theory of life, which was once opposed 200 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
by nearly the whole force of chemical authority, is now as 
generally accepted as it was formerly rejected ; or, according 
to Dr. Carpenter, it is now accepted by all, " except a few 
irreconcilables.” 
We have not been informed where these life-germs origi- 
nally came from, or how they were originated. The germ 
theory destroys the doctrine of " spontaneous generation,” 
but it does not tell us how* or when the floating germs in the 
air were placed there, or how life happens to be in the germs. 
This simply places the originating power one step farther 
back. 
But let us see whether our germ theory will help us get 
life into hermetically sealed bottles after all previous life 
has been destroyed by boiling. If life cannot be sponta- 
neously generated, can it be that all life above a certain 
stage of development may be destroyed by boiling, while 
the original invisible germs of life are not destroyed ? 
Can these germs, still retaining their vitality through the 
boiling, afterwards become developed into visible living 
organisms ? Germs of life are indeed wonderful things; 
they consist of many varieties, for each kind is believed 
to start a life of its particular kind only. I cannot think 
these germs start one kind or species of life, and then evolve 
themselves into another species. Not only germs for propa- 
gation of healthy animal life exist, but disease-germs, which, 
though living, tend to destroy animal, and even plant life ; 
and each kind of these germs is distinctly different from 
every other kind. 
Different kinds of disease-germs never intermingle, but 
always breed diseases of their own peculiar kind, typhoid- 
fever germs do not breed small-pox, nor small-pox breed 
measles, nor measles, diphtheria. PROF. TYNDALL. 
201 
Prof. Tyndall says (p. 41, "Floating Matter ”) ; "From 
their respective viruses, yon may plant typhoid-fever, scar- 
latina, or small-pox. What is the crop which arises from 
this husbandry? As surely as a thistle rises from a 
thistle seed, as surely as the fig comes from the fig, the 
grape from the grape, the thorn from the thorn, so surely 
does the typhoid virus increase and multiply into typhoid- 
fever, the scarlatina virus into scarlatina, the small-pox virus 
into small-pox. What is the conclusion that suggests itself 
here ? It is this : That the thing which we vaguely call a 
virus is, to all intents and purposes, a seed. Excluding the 
notion of vitality, in the whole range of chemical science 
you cannot point to an action which illustrates this perfect 
parallelism with the phenomena of life, this demonstrated 
power of self-multiplication and reproduction. The germ 
theory alone accounts for the phenomena.” 
As germs in grain always develop into stock and grain of 
their own peculiar kind, so all germs, whether good or evil, 
develop into their own kinds. But another question now 
arises. Can germs of living animals or plants pass through 
materials through which disease germs cannot pass? 
Disease-germs may be destroyed by carbolic acid and 
other disinfectants ; but can the original, invisible germs of 
life (if such exist) be thus destroyed? I now propose, in 
the next few pages, to go outside of the proper domains of 
scientific demonstrations. 
If the following brief suggestions seem puerile, let the 
wisest answer the questions if he can. These suppositions 
are not introduced because it is necessary to resort to such 
hypotheses to dispose of the doctrine of " spontaneous gen- 
eration,” but they show that, even if we could not filter out 
all the life-germs (which, luckily, we can), the doctrine of 202 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
"spontaneous generation,” with all the evidence which has 
been produced in its favor, would fail of anything like dem- 
onstration. 
Is there an original and invisible principle of life which is 
indestructible? Are immaterial essences connected with the 
minute material germs? and, if so, how large are they? 
If the original germs are wholly material, are they larger 
than what are supposed to be the ultimate and indivisible 
atoms of matter? Of course, what can be filtered out may 
be a thousand times larger. 
Do invisible vivifying influences, or vital forces, which 
are immaterial, or spiritual, exist prior to the material germs 
or substances from which animals or vegetables are generated 
or developed, and cause the animal or vegetable life to spring 
into existence? And if so, can any material substance inter- 
fere to hinder the free passage of the spiritual or vital forces 
to any place where suitable conditions for development exist? 
Is not Evolution itself dependent upon the action of imma- 
terial forces? Of course, a thing immaterial (if such exists) 
must become connected with a material substance before 
we can have any knowledge of it through our senses. 
A pain or emotion may be immaterial; but we can have 
no knowledge of it, except through our physical system. 
It is probable that pains, thoughts and emotions (though 
in themselves immaterial) are accompanied by molecular 
action upon or within the nervous system, and that this very 
action results in the consciousness of pain, joy, or sorrow 
and other emotions, and yet there is doubtless something 
antecedent to these molecular actions ; and the agitation of 
these molecules may be simply an accompaniment of some 
mysterious and invisible agency which causes mental states 
of fear, joy, hope, etc., and also bodily feelings of pain, etc. SIDNEY BILLING. 
203 
There may be a vital principle of which we can have no 
knowledge before it becomes connected with the living or- 
ganisms ; but lack of definite knowledge on this point does 
not indicate that such a vital principle does not preexist. 
There are phenomena connected with animal life that I cannot 
account for except upon the supposition that a vital principle 
is preexistent. 
Sidney Billing says (p. 16, "Scientific Materialism”): 
"If we collate the facts, what do we find? Vital force as 
the inherent fact of all things ; physical or material force 
but a consequence of the organization. Vital force origi- 
nates, physical force acts only through an impulsion. Vital 
force congregates, disintegrates, and multiplies itself; physi- 
cal force acts only in masses through gravitation. Vital 
force cannot be originated, nor its issues directed ; but physi- 
cal force may be directed and called into action at will, and 
may be made the plaything of the hour, as the incitation of 
muscular elasticity after death.” 
Now about the generation of life in hermetically sealed 
vessels. From all the evidence pro and con, it seems 
clear that no life appears in any solution where life germs 
have been fully destroyed, unless the solution in some way 
comes in contact with the air, through some want of care in 
making the experiment, or by some defect in the testing 
apparatus, or unless it comes in contact with some other 
substance containing the life-germs ; for the thousand experi- 
ments made by Prof. Tyndall with various solutions in 
moteless air, and no life appearing, would seem to settle the 
question against " spontaneous generation ” in such solutions. 
But even if his experiments had turned out otherwise, 
and life had appeared in hermetically sealed vessels after 
all proper precautions had been taken, that would not 204 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
necessarily prove the doctrine of ” spontaneous genera- 
tion.” 
Suppose the original atoms touch each other in glass, or 
in dense metals, and that, according to the general forms of 
matter as found in drops of water and the planets, these 
atoms are globular, interstices between the atoms must still 
exist, as in a case of shot, however fine. How then do we 
know, even in this case, that the interstices between ulti- 
mate atoms are not large enough to allow the essential or 
vital principle of life to pass through ? 
It has been stated that by the action of electricity particles 
of gold have been driven into plates of glass, which (if true) 
seems to indicate that what we call solid glass is, in reality, 
porous, and this would seem to agree with the atomic 
theory ; and further, that the atoms of gold are fine enough to 
enter these pores of glass, and that without any supernatural 
influences. 
While , as before stated, there is no necessity for resorting 
to such a hypothesis, we may say that the essential, spiritual 
life germs, if such can be assumed to exist, may be, for all 
that we know, as many times smaller than the atoms of gold 
as atoms of gold are times smaller than bullets. No one 
can show that this may not be so. 
Then again, suppose that these ultimate atoms, which no 
man ever saw, were of irregular shape, interstices may exist 
even larger than if all were globular, and thus the porosity 
of the substance be even greater than in the former sup- 
posed case. That interstices must exist is an inevitable 
consequence of the atomic theory as generally received. 
Thus these experiments of learned men in Europe and 
America,— with these infusions of hay, and of turnip, and a 
dozen other infusions, both animal and vegetable, in sealed RUDOLF SCHMID. 
205 
bottles, even if life was apparently generated there, would 
by no means prove that an immaterial principle of the germs 
of life did not go through the pores of the glass into these 
infusions. Ido not claim that this is so ; but it shows that 
what some learned men have received as a demonstration 
falls very far short of it. 
Since writing the above I have seen Rudolf Schmid on 
" The Theories of Darwin,” and on pp. 138, 139 find the 
following: " This inexplicability would still exist, if what 
is quite improbable should happen, namely, that the experi- 
mental attempts at artificially producing organic life 
should be successful, and if thus the question as to the gen- 
eratio cequivoca, which during the past decades so much 
alarmed the minds of scientists and theologians, should be ex- 
perimentally solved and answered in the affirmative. For in 
view of the hopes of a possible explanation of life, which is 
expected to be the reward for the success of these attempts, 
Zollner is fully right in saying: ' That the scientists to-day 
set such an extremely high value on the inductive proof of 
the generatio cequivoca, is the most significant symptom of 
how little they have made themselves acquainted with the 
first principles of the theory of knowledge. For, suppose 
they should really succeed in observing the origin of organic 
germs under conditions entirely free from objection to any 
imaginable communication with the atmosphere, what could 
they answer to the assertion that the organic germs, in refer- 
ence to their extension, are of the order of ether-atoms, and, 
with these, press through the intervals of the material mole- 
cules which form the sides of our apparatus ? ’ ” 
Doubtless the reader already knows that the atomic theory 
is merely an hypothesis, and that we do not know whether 
the atoms (if they exist) are all alike and material, or 206 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
whether a part are material atoms and others ether-atoms. 
Again, among the sixty-five supposed original chemical ele- 
ments, what, for instance, is the difference between an atom 
of hydrogen and one of nitrogen ? 
So of the various kinds of life-germs which we are able to 
screen out of fluids, in what do their differences consist? 
Where these life-germs originate, or how they happen to 
be everywhere present, Ido not attempt to explain. But it 
has been proved by Pasteur’s and Tyndall’s experiments that 
these life-germs, so far as we are now acquainted with them, 
can easily be prevented from getting into solutions by wads 
of cotton-wool. 
Sometimes, however, it has been exceedingly difficult to 
so perfectly filter infusions that all the visible suspended par- 
ticles of matter will be removed. After going through a score 
or more sheets of filtering-paper, visible particles will still re- 
main. Yet porous earthen-ware will screen out such life- 
germs ; and thus we have no need of laying much stress upon 
any supposed spiritual essence which may go through what 
are called solids. Dr. Tyndall says (pp. 80, 81, "Floating 
Matter”): "Infinitesimal as these particles are, however, 
they may be separated by mechanical means from the liquid 
in which they are held in suspension. Filters of porous 
earthen-ware, such as the porous cells of Bunsen’s battery, 
have been turned to important account in the researches 
of Dr. Zahn, Prof. Klebs, and Dr. Burdon Sanderson. 
" In various instances it has been proved that, as regards 
the infection of living animals, the porous earthen-ware inter- 
cepts contagia. For the living animal, organic infusions or 
Pasteur’s solution may be substituted. Not only are ice- 
water, distilled water, and tap-water thus deprived of their 
powers of infection, but, by plunging the porous cell into OWEN AND HITCHCOCK. 
207 
an infusion swarming with Bacterial life, exhausting the cell, 
and permitting the liquid to be slowly driven through it by 
atmospheric pressure, the filtrate is not only deprived of its 
Bacteria, but also of those ultra-microscopic germs which 
appear to be as potent for infection as the Bacteria them- 
selves The precipitated mastic particles before described, 
which pass unimpeded through an indefinite number of 
paper filters, are wholly intercepted by the porous cell. 
"These germinal particles abound in every pool, stream, 
and river. All parts of the moist earth are crowded with 
them. Every wetted surface which has been dried by the 
sun or air contains upon it particles which the unevaporated 
liquid held in suspension. From such surfaces they are 
detached and wafted away, their universal prevalence in the 
atmosphere being thus accounted for. Doubtless they some- 
times attach themselves to coarser particles, organic and in- 
organic, which are left behind along with them ; but they 
need no such rafts to carry them through the air, being 
themselves endowed with a power of flotation commensurate 
with their extreme smallness and the specific lightness of 
the matter of which they are composed.” 
Prof. Owen, as quoted by Hitchcock (p. 304), more 
than thirty years since wrote : " Thus each leaves, by the 
last act of its life, the means of perpetuating and diffus- 
ing its species by thousands of fertile germs. When once 
the thickly tenanted pool is dried up, and its bottom con- 
verted into a layer of dust, these inconceivably minute and 
light ova will be raised with the dust by the first puff of 
wind, diffused through the atmosphere, and may there re- 
main long suspended, forming, perhaps, their share of the 
particles which we see flickering in the sunbeam, ready to 
fall into any collection of water, beaten down by every 208 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
summer shower into the streams or pools which receive or 
may be formed by such showers, and, by virtue of their 
tenacity of life, ready to develop themselves whenever they 
may find the requisite conditions of their existence. The 
possibility, or, rather, the high probability, that such is the 
design of the oviparous generation of the infusoria, and such 
the common mode of the diffusion of their ova, renders the 
hypothesis of equivocal generation, which has been so fre- 
quently invoked to explain their origin in new-formed natu- 
ral or artificial infusions, quite gratuitous.” (Owen’s "Lect. 
Comp. Anat.,” vol. 2, p. 31.) It is doubtless from these 
very minute floating germs that life in the infusions which 
have been deprived of all living existences must come. But 
this still leaves the question how these " germinal particles ” 
first came to be in every pool, stream, and river unanswered. 
Science has not demonstrated how these myriad forms of 
germinal life which constitute so large a proportion of the 
"floating matter of the air” are themselves generated, or 
decided whether they are first generated in the water. It is 
generally thought that the first appearance of terrestrial life 
was in the water, that in the water living organisms were 
first created or developed. It is, however, useless to make 
positive assertions on this pbint, in our present state of knowl- 
edge. Certainly the advocates of " spontaneous genera- 
tion” have no warrant for assuming that these animalcules 
which are so numerous in water are " spontaneously gen- 
erated” in the water. We do not know for a certainty 
whether these germinal particles are first in the air and fall 
into these pools, and in this way fill the pools with living 
particles, or whether they are first generated in the water, 
and from these wafted into the atmosphere. Nor is it neces- 
sary that we should know whether they first originate in the PASTEUR AND TYNDALL. 
209 
air or in the water, so long as we know the fact that in both 
air and water these germs exist in almost infinite numbers. 
The advocates of " spontaneous generation ” have made 
hundreds, and, perhaps, thousands, of experiments, and some- 
times have thought they proved it beyond a doubt. One 
exhausted the air from a glass vessel, and let no air into the 
vessel except what passed through quicksilver, supposing 
that no life-germs could go through so dense a medium as 
quicksilver; but living things appeared in his solution, and 
he thought he had a case of genuine spontaneous generation. 
But M. Pasteur, upon investigation, found that quicksilver 
itself might become permeated with these living germs. 
I have referred to faultiness of experiments as a frequent 
cause of misleading the believers in "spontaneous genera- 
tion,” and I can favor my readers no better than by quoting 
freely from Prof. Tyndall to show how these mistakes are 
likely to occur. He says (pp. 124, 125, " Floating Matter”) : 
the course of this inquiry some eminent biologists 
have been good enough, from time to time, to look in upon 
my work, and to give me their views regarding the evidential 
force of the experiments. To Prof. Huxley, moreover, I 
am indebted for undertaking the examination of a number 
of the hermetically sealed tubes. Thirty of them were 
placed in his hands, none of them being regarded as defec- 
tive. A close examination, however, disclosed in one of 
them a mycelium. No faultiness could for a time be dis- 
covered in the tube; the sealing appeared to be quite as 
perfect as that of its sterile fellows. 
" Once, however, on shaking it, a minute drop of liquid 
struck my friend’s face, and he soon discovered that an 
orifice of almost microscopic minuteness had been left open 
in the nozzle of the tube. Through this the common air 210 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
had been sucked in as the liquid cooled, and hence the con- 
tamination. It was the only defective tube of the group 
of thirty, and it alone showed signs of life. 
" The statement of this fact before the Royal Society, by 
Prof. Huxley, brought to my mind a somewhat similar 
experience of my own. One morning in November I lifted 
one of the hermetically sealed tubes from the wire on which 
it was suspended, and, holding it up against the light, dis- 
covered, to my astonishment, a beautiful mycelium at the 
bottom. Before restoring the tube to its place I touched 
its fused end, and found it cutting sharp. Close inspection 
showed that the nozzle had been broken off; the common 
air had entered and the seed of the mycelium had been 
sown. Two other instances, one like that observed by Prof. 
Huxley, have since come to light. In one of them a minute 
orifice remained after the supposed sealing of the tube. The 
other case was noticed when the tubes were returned from 
the Turkish bath. One of them contained a luxuriant 
mycelium. It was noticed that the liquid in this tube had 
singularly diminished in quantity, and on turning the tube 
up it was found cracked at the bottom. 
'f No case of pseudo-spontaneous generation ever occurred 
under ray hands that was not to be accounted for in an 
equally satisfactory manner.” 
Much more might be written on this point, but the ex- 
amples here given are samples of hundreds of like experiments 
with like results. But I will add one more quotation from 
Tyndall (p. 224, "Floating Matter ”). He says, "The source 
of the contagium was also indicated by the following experi- 
ments. 
"A large number of retort-flasks, embracing infusions of 
snipe, wild duck, partridge, hare, rabbit, mutton, turbot, TYNDALL 
211 
salmon, whiting, mullet, turnip, and hay, had remained over 
from my stock of 1875. After a year’s exposure to the 
temperature of our warm room not one of these flasks showed 
the slightest trace of turbidity or life. On the 7th of 
December the sealed ends of forty of them were snipped 
off in the laboratory. Five days afterwards twenty-seven 
of them were found swarming with organisms, a consider- 
ably higher percentage than that obtained by the same pro- 
cess in the same laboratory a year previously. 
"It is needless to dwell with any emphasis on the obvious 
inference from all this, namely, that the contagium is external 
to the infusions, that it is something in the air, and that at 
different times we have different amounts of aerial interspace 
free from the floating contagium.” 
It would seem that these experiments ought to settle the 
question. 
When a writer has won a high reputation for careful 
scientific investigations his statements will justly have great 
weight; and when his experiments seem to demonstrate the 
truth of a theory, then the majority of men will believe that 
he has made no mistake in his conclusions; yet when no one 
can know with certainty what the actual truth is in a disputed 
case like the origin of life, great men may support a wrong 
theory as well as men of less eminent attainments. Careful 
students who have clear heads are quite as likely to hold 
actual truth as men of genius who deal largely in theories 
which are the creations of their own imaginations. 
The writings of great men prove this, for they are largely 
composed of articles correcting the mistakes of still greater 
men. 
Huxley says ("Critiques and Addresses,” p. 281) : Dr. 
Haeckel "conceives that all forms of life originally com- 212 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
menced as Monera, or simple particles of protoplasm, and 
that these Monera originated from not-living matter. Some 
of the Monera acquired tendencies towards the Protistic, 
others towards the Vegetal, and others towards the Animal, 
modes of life. The last became animal Monera 
Then these animal monera went through twenty-two dis- 
tinct stages, till the perfect man was produced. But no 
proof, beyond certain statements and suppositions which 
appear reasonable to Hheckel, is given. As it seems so to 
him, and no man has proved that he is not right in many 
of his suppositions, —he has a right to his own opinions; 
and so have other men, who cannot accept his conclusions, 
a right to their opinions. 
Dr. Wainwright, in opposing the views of Haeckel (pp. 
77, 78, "Scientific Sophisms ”), states that "Du Bois Rey- 
mond has incurred the . . . wrath of Haeckel by declaring 
this genealogical tree (Stammbaum) to be as authentic in 
the eyes of a naturalist, as are the pedigrees of the Homeric 
heroes in those of an historian.” 
Haeckel is more positive in his statements than most men 
of such high intellectual attainments usually are. Generally 
when really great men propound such or similar theories 
they do not pretend that they can demonstrate them to be 
true. They propose- them as conclusions which should be 
drawn from other facts which they know to be true. If 
these hypotheses seem reasonable to a majority of scientific 
men they are generally accepted without actual demonstra- 
tions. But trouble comes when second or third rate men 
(claiming to be scientific) read these hypotheses and then 
restate them as facts which have been proved, and thus 
mislead those who listen to them. So long as we carefully 
distinguish between facts and mere suppositions we are not PROTOPLASM. 
213 
in danger ; but when we mistake suppositions for facts then 
danger comes. 
Let us then consider facts, and see where the boundaries 
of our knowledge are fixed. First, in regard to the bounda- 
ries which limit microscopic observation : 
Much of the matter which floats in our atmosphere is too 
fine to be seen with the most powerful microscopes, and yet 
a concentrated beam of light will reveal the presence of these 
motes. But if these motes are too small for microscopic 
observation, any accurate description of their shapes or com- 
position is impossible. Yet many of these very minute 
motes are believed to be living germs, which breed disease, 
or parasitic life if they get access to proper material, such 
as wounds in animals or men. 
Here are limits to be constantly kept in mind when study- 
ing matters pertaining to the origin of life. The original 
germs of life may be much smaller than anything which can 
be discerned with the microscope. 
It should also be borne in mind, that, with the microscope, 
one investigator may see what another can never see. And 
another man may think he sees what no man ever did see or 
ever will see. The imagination often supplies investigators 
with mistaken material. Now about the examination of the 
smallest and simplest particles of organic matter, viz., pro- 
toplasm. 
According to Strieker (Wainwright, "Scientific Soph- 
isms,” p. 132), protoplasm is many-shaped. "We have club- 
shaped protoplasm, globe-shaped protoplasm, bottle-shaped 
protoplasm, cup-shaped protoplasm, spindle-shaped proto- 
plasm;” and he describes twelve other shaped protoplasms. 
Sometimes it is fluid, sometimes semifluid and gelatinous ; 
sometimes of considerable resistance. 214 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
" Then there is nerve protoplasm, brain protoplasm, bone 
protoplasm, muscle protoplasm, and the protoplasm of all 
the other tissues, no one of which but produces its own kind, 
and is uninterchangeable with the rest.” Lastly, "We have 
to point to the overwhelming fact that there is the infinitely 
different protoplasm of the various infinitely different plants 
and animals, in each of which its own protoplasm, as in case 
of the various tissues, but produces its own kind, and is un- 
interchangeable with that of the rest.” 
Query: Are these protoplasms really different in kind, or 
is the difference in the moulding forces ? The protoplasm 
from which the sugar-maple is developed and that from 
which the deadly nightshade grows may be entirely different 
protoplasms ; and this may be the reason why each never gets 
the protoplasm which belongs to the other. Why do weeds 
in the garden always draw from the soil only their own kind 
of protoplasm? Why does wheat always draw only its own 
kind, while the grass draws another kind? Why do differ- 
ent kinds of grasses never interchange their own kinds? 
Does it not seem probable that there may be a different kind 
of vital principle for each and every species of plant and ani- 
mal, which transmutes the same or similar kinds of proto- 
plasm, so as to make them contribute to the support and 
growth of each different species of plants and animals ? 
This action of growth seems to be mechanical; but under 
what law of mechanics do they make this choice of substance, 
and never make a mistake in their choice ? So of animals. 
There is a certain something which places a clear distinction 
between the building up of men and animals, and also between 
the different races of animals. There is no danger that 
horses will ever assimilate the protoplasm belonging exclu- 
sively to sheep, nor that sheep will ever produce dogs, nor SINGLE CELLS. 
215 
dogs produce birds. Nature has fixed these bounds, and 
never mistakes them. 
From the fact that the first outlines of human beings and 
all other animals in the ovum appear precisely alike, and 
cannot be distinguished from each other, and that each is 
a single cell, certain evolutionists carrying out analogy assert 
that the original ancestral form of man and all other animals 
was a one-celled organism. But it is legitimate to ask such 
to show proof of the correctness of this assertion. 
The word cell is here used not to represent the ultimate 
particles of protoplasm but the elementary forms of organic 
matter somewhat in mass. A cell generally consists of con- 
centric layers of cell-wall, protoplasm, etc., in one distinct 
organism. 
The ovum is a single cell before fertilization, but fertiliza- 
tion entirely changes the character of the ovum, as it after- 
wards becomes a many-celled organism, and the number of 
cells continues to increase with its development. 
Dr. Haeckel says (pp. 136, 137, vol. 1, "Evolution of 
Man’’) : " Even under the highest magnifying power of the 
best microscope, there appears to be no essential difference 
between the eggs of Man, of the Ape, of the Dog, etc. This 
does not mean that they are not really different in these dif- 
ferent Mammals. On the contrary, we must assume that 
such differences, at least in point of chemical composition, 
exist universally. Even of human eggs, each differs from the 
other. In accordance with the law of individual variation, 
we must assume that 'all individual organisms are, from the 
very beginning of their individual existence, different, though 
often very similar.’” 
I am somewhat surprised at this confession of Dr. Hfeckel, 
for I should suppose that, to be consistent with his general 216 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
theory, he would have contended that these ova, which 
originally looked alike, were, indeed, alike at first, but that 
all the differences manifested afterwards by different races of 
animals were simply modifications received from the particular 
animals through which they received their development. It 
is probable, however, that the Doctor looked farther, and 
saw what effect this theory of original individual differences 
would have in another direction. 
Sure enough, why should there not be individual differences 
from the very beginning of life ? But where is this beginning ? 
Certainly it is before the ovum gets to be a one-hundred- 
and-fiftieth of an inch in diameter, as it is generally, when 
examined with the microscope. Probably at this time it 
has thousands, and, perhaps, millions, of molecules in its 
organism; and the innate composition of the ova of the 
man, dog, horse, etc., may be as different as the hundreds 
of chemical combinations, which can be made from a few 
simple chemical constituents, some of which combinations, 
as water, may be perfectly harmless; while others, like 
sulphuric acid, gunpowder, or corrosive sublimate, may be 
peculiarly destructive. So the differences of the very natures 
which are contained in these eggs which look alike may be 
originally as great as we find them in adult men, dogs, and 
horses. 
The original natures inhere in the ova, and we have no 
reason to suppose that the differences in their original natures 
are not as real in these ova as they are in the mature animals. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. 
217 
CHAPTER IX. 
THIS CHAPTER CONTAINS A SHORT HISTORY OF DISCUSSIONS 
CONCERNING THE SUBJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE LAST 
CHAPTER, AND EXTRACTS FROM THE RECORDS OF EX- 
PERIMENTS MADE BY PROF. TYNDALL UPON GERMI- 
NATING FLUIDS. 
The writings of Aristotle generally controlled the science 
of natural history for two thousand years, and in fact 
Aristotle may be called "the Father of Natural History.” 
Aristotle denied " the eternity of the individual,” and con- 
tended that the individual came into existence "in the act of 
generation, and perished at death.” 
But if Aristotle was right in this supposition, of which he 
gave no proof, that does not answer the question, " Whence 
is life?” For two thousand years succeeding Aristotle the 
doctrine of " spontaneous generation ” was generally accepted 
by scientific men. Caterpillars and insects which infest 
trees and vegetables were supposed to be spontaneously gen- 
erated. Because putrefying flesh was infested with worms, 
or other living creatures, the supposition was that these came 
spontaneously. No one was able to show that this was other- 
wise until A.D. 1668, when Dr. Francisco Redi, of Tuscany, 
while watching meat ready to decay noticed flies alight upon 
it, and suspected that the maggots which followed were in 
some way connected with these flies. He then placed meat 
in jars so covered that the flies could not get access to it, 
and found that, although it putrefied, no maggots came. He 218 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
then put gauze over the mouth of the jars, and he found 
that the flies hovered over the meat, and laid their eggs on 
the gauze, and they hatched out there, but no maggots came 
in the meat. Other physicians and philosophers continued 
these observations and experiments ; and though improve- 
ments in the microscope helped to dispel the illusions of 
centuries respecting the generation of the larger insects, etc., 
yet the animalcules found in stagnant water were still 
believed to be spontaneously generated. For about two 
hundred years succeeding, many distinguished men were 
ranged on each side of the controversy, and not until within 
the past twenty years have anything like positive results 
been reached on this question. 
As late as 1872 Dr. H. C. Bastian published his views 
on abiogenesis, and strongly advocated the doctrine of 
"spontaneous generation.” Speculations concerning the 
origin of bacterial life become intimately connected with 
the germ theory of diseases. 
Do diseases originate themselves ? or are they propagated 
as vegetable and animal life are propagated? Do putrefac- 
tive germs breed from previous germs ? Or do they originate 
spontaneously? Closely connected with the germ theory 
comes the "antiseptic system of surgery” of Prof. Lister, 
which has rendered surgical operations comparatively safe 
which, a few years ago, were exposed to extreme peril. Prof. 
Lister, like Pasteur, Dr, Budd, Prof. Tyndall, and others, 
believes that all putrefactive diseases originate from disease- 
germs which float in the air and readily attach themselves 
to any person or substance which is susceptible to their 
action. Dr. W. B. Carpenter writes, in the " Nineteenth 
Century,” of Prof. Lister’s theory (as quoted in "Popular 
Science Monthly,” Dec., 1881, p. 248) : " Among the most PASTEUR AND DR. CARPENTER. 
219 
immediately productive of its results may be accounted the 
' antiseptic surgery ’ of Prof. Lister, of which the principle 
is the careful exclusion of living bacteria and other germs 
alike from the natural internal cavities of the body and from 
such as are formed by disease, whenever these may be laid 
open by accident or may have to be opened surgically. 
This exclusion is effected by the judicious use of carbolic 
acid, which kills the germs without doing any mischief to 
the patient; and the saving of lives, of limbs, and of severe 
suffering, already brought about by this method, constitutes 
in itself a glorious ti’iumph alike to the scientific elaborator 
of the germ-doctrine and to the scientific surgeon by whom 
it has been thus applied.” 
M. Pasteur has cultivated various disease-germs as one 
would cultivate grain, and has discovered processes by which 
these germs may be rendered malignant, and in almost every 
case produce certain death to such as become inoculated with 
the deadly virus; and he has also discovered Avays of render- 
ing the same comparatively harmless. His experiments have 
been of immense advantage in stamping out deadly diseases 
among the flocks of France. He has also discovered the 
destroyers of the grape-vine of France. He proved them to 
be propagated by living germs, and provided a remedy 
against them. 
The remarks of Dr. Carpenter are so directly in point 
and of such practical importance that I shall quote freely 
from his article. He says of the transmission of disease- 
germs among flocks of sheep : " One of the first questions 
examined by Pasteur was the cause of outbreaks of ' char- 
bon’ in its most deadly form among flocks of sheep feeding 
in what appeared to be the healthiest pastures, far removed 
from any obvious source of infection. Learning by the in- 220 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
quiries he instituted that special localities seemed haunted, 
at distant intervals, by this plague, he inquired what had 
been done with the bodies of the animals that had died of it, 
and learned that it had been customary to bury them deep in 
the soil, and that such interments had been made, it might 
have been ten years before, beneath the surface of some of the 
very pastures in which the fresh outbreaks took place. Not- 
withstanding that the depth (ten or twelve feet) at which 
the carcasses had been buried seemed to preclude the idea of 
the upward travelling of the poison-germs, the divining 
mind of Pasteur found in earthworms a probable means of 
their conveyance, and he soon obtained an experimental veri- 
fication of his idea which satisfied even those who were at 
first disposed to ridicule it. Collecting a number of worms 
from these pastures, he made an extract of the contents of 
their alimentary canals, and found that the inoculation of 
rabbits and Guinea-pigs with this extract gave them the 
severest form of ' charbon,’ due to the multiplication in 
their circulating current of the deadly anthrax-bacillus, 
with which their blood was found after death to be 
loaded. 
" Another mode in which the disease-germs of anthrax 
may be conveyed to herds of cattle widely separated from 
each other and from any ostensible source of infectioh was 
discovered by the inquiries prosecuted, a few years ago, by 
Prof. Burdon-Sanderson at the Brown Institution, in conse- 
quence of a number of simultaneous outbreaks which 
occurred in different parts of the country. It was found 
that all the herds affected had been fed with brewers’ grains, 
supplied from a common source ; and, on examining micro- 
scopically a sample of these grains, they were seen to be 
swarming with the deadly bacillus, which, when it has once PASTEUR AND DR. CARPENTER. 
221 
found its way among them, grows and multiplies with 
extraordinary rapidity.” 
Pasteur and others struck upon the idea that the violence 
of such diseases might be mitigated by inoculation, in the 
same way that inoculation against small-pox has been prac- 
tised. Having cultivated charbon-virus until it was of 
proper strength, he tried it upon various animals with suc- 
cess, until the Provincial Agricultural Society of France 
thought best to make a test of the value of his theory upon 
a scale of considerable extent. The result is described as 
follows in the language of Dr. Carpenter : 
"Accordingly, a farm and a flock of fifty sheep having 
been placed at M. Pasteur’s disposal, he 'vaccinated’ 
twenty-five of the flock (distinguished by a perforation of 
their ears) with the mild virus on the 3d of May last, 
and repeated the operation on the 17th of the same month. 
The animals all passed through a slight indisposition, but 
at the end of the month none of them were found to have 
lost either fat, appetite, or liveliness. On the 31st of 
that month all the fifty sheep, without distinction, were 
inoculated with the strongest charbon-virus, and M. Pasteur 
predicted that on the following day the twenty-five sheep 
inoculated for the first time would all be dead, while those 
protected by previous ' vaccination ’ with the mild virus 
would be perfectly free from even slight indisposition. A 
large assemblage of agricultural authorities, cavalry offi- 
cers, and veterinary surgeons having met at the field the 
next afternoon (June 1), the result was found to he ex- 
actly in accordance with M. Pasteur's predictions. At 
two o’clock twenty-three of the 'unprotected’ sheep were 
dead; the twenty-fourth died within another hour, and 
the twenty-fifth, an hour afterward. But the twenty-five 222 
THE DEVELOPMENT OE LIFE. 
'vaccinated’ sheep were all in perfectly good condition; 
one of them, which had been designedly inoculated with 
an extra dose of the poison, having been slightly indisposed 
for a few hours, but having then recovered. The twenty- 
five carcasses were then buried in a selected spot, with a 
view to the further experimental testing of the poisonous 
effect produced upon the grass which will grow over their 
graves. But the result, says the reporter of the 'Times’ 
(June 2) 'is already certain; and the agricultural public 
now know that an infallible preventive exists against the 
charbon-poison, which is neither costly nor difficult, as a 
single man can inoculate a thousand sheep in a day.’ ” 
To show the extreme importance of this theory in regard 
to other diseases, I quote further from Dr. Carpenter; 
" These wonderful results obviously hold out an almost sure 
hope of preventing the ravages, not merely of the destructive 
animal plagues that show themselves from time to time 
among us, but of doing that for some of the most fatal forms 
of human infectious disease which Jennerian vaccination has 
already done —as shown by Sir Thomas Watson in these 
pages for what was once the most dreaded of them, 
small-pox.” 
It scarcely seems too much to expect that before long, 
as Prof. Lister last year suggested, "An appropriate 
'vaccine’ may be discovered for measles, scarlet fever, and 
other acute specific diseases in the human subject; ” for 
already, as I have been informed by one of the most dis- 
tinguished of the United States members of our Congress, re- 
searches have been there made, with very promising results, 
on the " cultivation of the diphtheritic virus,—the mor- 
tality from which, in England and Wales, during the last 
decade, has averaged nearly three thousand annually, being, THE PLAGUE. 
223 
for seven years, 1873-1879, half as great again as the 
mortality from small-pox during the same period.” I may 
here add that M. Pasteur has now secured a world-wide 
reputation for his successful treatment of the dreadful disease 
of hydrophobia by means of vaccination. 
Much more might be said on this point, and its importance 
will appear more clearly when we consider that the " black 
death ” which carried off one-third of the population of 
Europe some five hundred years ago, was, doubtless, prop- 
agated by disease germs which floated through the atmos- 
phere. Dried disease germs will live through all extremes 
of heat or cold ever experienced in our climate, and prob- 
ably will retain their destructive vitality, if kept dry, for 
centuries. I see no reason why they may not (like the grain 
taken out with the Egyptian mummies and planted) grow 
into a regular crop after lying dormant for thousands of 
years, during all which time their vitality may remain 
unimpaired. 
The plague which has so often afflicted parts of Europe 
was a sort of contagious fever, accompanied by carbuncles 
and buboes. The last visitation to Southern Europe was in 
1815 and 1816, and we may hope it may never again visit 
the earth; yet I see no reason why its germs may not still 
exist, and only favorable circumstances may be wanting to 
induce its return. Each kind of disease-germs breeds only 
its own kind, and for each kind of contagious disease a 
separate class of germs exists; and if these germs are not 
self-originating, or, in other words, cannot be spontaneously 
generated, then the question how they do originate assumes 
great importance. 
Shultze and Schwann, in Germany, tried many experiments 
to show the effect of the exclusion of the air in preventing 224 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
the appearance of living organisms in decomposable fluids. 
Dr. Carpenter continues : " But the discovery of the real 
nature of yeast and the recognition of the part it plays in 
alcoholic fermentation gave an entirely new value to Shultze’s 
and Schwann’s results, suggesting that putrefactive and 
other kinds of decomposition may be really due, not (as 
formerly supposed) to the action of atmospheric oxygen 
upon unstable organic compounds, but to a new arrangement 
of elements brought about by the development of germinal 
particles deposited from the atmosphere. 
"It was at this point that Pasteur took up the inquiry, 
and, for its subsequent complete working out, science is mainly 
indebted to him ; for, although other investigators notably 
Prof. Tyndall have confirmed and extended his conclu- 
sions by ingenious variations on his mode of research, they 
would be the first to acknowledge that all those main posi- 
tions which have now gained universal acceptance, save on 
the part of a few obstinate ' irreconcilables,’ have been estab- 
lished by Pasteur’s own labors. These positions may be 
briefly summarized as follows : 
1. " That no organic fluid undergoes spontaneous fermen- 
tation or decomposition, even in the presence of atmospheric 
air, any such action being originated and maintained only 
by the developmental action of definite organic germs. 
2. "That different kinds of fermentation (using that 
term in its large sense) are produced by organic germs of 
different species. Thus, while torula sets going the 
alcoholic fermentation in a saccharine wort, other fungoid 
germs will set up the acetous, and others, again, the putre- 
factive, fermentation, when introduced into fluids of the same 
kind. 
3. "That many different kinds of germs —notably those GERM-PARTICLES. 
225 
of the bacteria, which induce putrefactive fermentation 
are constantly floating in the ordinary atmosphere, so as to 
be almost certainly self-sown in any organic fluid freely ex- 
posed to it. 
4. " That, if these germs be removed by mechanical fil- 
tration, or be got rid of by subsidence, or be deprived of their 
potency by chemical agents which destroy their vitality, the 
most readily decomposable organic fluid may be subjected to 
the freest contact with the air from which the germs have 
been thus eliminated without undergoing any change. 
5. "That as there is no such thing as fermentation with- 
out the presence of germ-particles, so there is no such thing 
as the spontaneous origination of such germs, each kind, 
when sown in the liquid, reproducing itself with the same 
regularity as in higher plants, and thus continuously main- 
taining its own type. 
6. "That such germ-particles, when dried up, can not 
only maintain their germinal power for unlimited periods, 
starting into renewed activity so soon as the requisite con- 
ditions are supplied, but that, in this state of dormant 
vitality, they can be subjected to influences which would 
destroy the life of the growing plants, such as very high 
or very low temperatures, the action of strong acid or 
alkaline solutions, and the like.” 
It will be seen that these statements cover a very wide 
field. The air we breathe is permeated with fine floating 
matter, and about one-half of this floating dust is composed 
of organic matter, the very smallest particle of which may 
carry the seeds of life or death to organic matter subject to 
its influences. This has been proved by taking solutions 
which have been put up in hermetically-sealed vessels, and 
which have remained perfectly clear, and devoid of the least 226 
THE DEVELOPMENT OP LIFE, 
appearance of life for months ; but by placing the smallest 
particle of this dust in these infusions, they will teem with 
living organisms within forty-eight hours. 
These floating particles, which can be seen by a concen- 
trated beam of light, are so exceedingly minute that they 
cannot be seen by the best microscope. In proof of this 
I quote from Prof. Tyndall’s " Floating Matter of the 
Air” (p. 78) : 
"'Potential germs ’ and 'hypothetical germs’ have been 
spoken of with scorn, because the evidence of the micro- 
scope as to their existence was not forthcoming. Sagacious 
writers had drawn from their experiments the perfectly 
legitimate inference that in many cases the germs exist, 
though the microscope fails to reveal them. Such infer- 
ences, however, have been treated as the pure work of 
the imagination, resting, it was alleged, on no real basis of 
fact. But in the concentrated beam we possess what is 
virtually a new instrument, exceeding the microscope in- 
definitely in power. Directing it upon media which refuse 
to give the coarser instrument any information as to what 
they hold in suspension, these media declare themselves 
to be crowded with particles not hypothetical, not po- 
tential, but actual and myriad-fold in number showing 
the 'microscopist that there is a world far beyond his 
range.” 
Thus we have in the concentrated beam of light a 
revealer of what would otherwise forever remain con- 
cealed. But we must bear in mind that these minute 
atmospheric germs probably are not the bacteria of disease 
but simply the germs from which the bacteria are bred. 
And yet not all these germs are necessarily deleterious in 
their influences. FLOATING GERMS. 
227 
All water which is exposed to the common air is per- 
vaded with these germinal particles, which fall into it from 
the air, if such germs are not indigenous to the water. 
From the immense number of germs in a closed room, 
we might infer that every part of the surface of the 
water must constantly be becoming filled with them. 
Tyndall has estimated that in a room fifteen by twenty 
feet, divided into horizontal spaces six inches apart, the 
number of germs that fall daily are over 30,000,000. He 
says: "At all events, 30,000,000 of germs daily would 
be an exceedingly moderate estimate of the number fall- 
ing into thirty layers of tubes.” 
It is true that some are sceptical in regard to this 
great number of germs, but surely there are enough to 
infect any and every particle of fermentable or putres- 
cible matter which is left exposed to the air. These germs 
may be much more plenty in one place than in another, 
as was proved by the experiments of Tyndall in 1876, 
when he found it very difficult to perfectly sterilize infu- 
sions in a certain room ; but in a shed built only eight 
yards from this room he found no difficulty in sterilizing 
them. In the laboratory where he had used some old hay 
the germs remained very abundant for a long time after- 
wards ; but the shed built only eight yards distant had not 
been infected by the hay-germs, and germs were compara- 
tively few there. Perhaps no one article has more vigorous 
life-germs in it than old hay, and the infusions are often 
hard to sterilize. Well may Tyndall say, as he does on 
p. 179 : 
"Let us compare results and draw conclusions. At a 
distance of eight yards from the shed, viz., in the labora- 
tory, infusions both of beef and cucumber refused to be 228 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
sterilized by three hours’ boiling. Indeed, I have samples of 
both infusions which have borne five hours’ boiling and 
developed multitudinous life afterwards. But the upshot of 
this experiment in the disinfected shed is, that every tube of 
the two chambers, though boiled for only five minutes, con- 
tains an infusion which, at the present hour, is as limpid as 
the purest distilled water. 
" What shall we say, then ? Is the infusion in the labora- 
tory endowed with a generative force denied to the same 
infusion in the shed? Irrespective of the condition of the 
air can a linear space of eight yards produce so remarkable 
a difference ? It is only the confusion of mind still prev- 
alent in relation to this subject that renders such a ques- 
tion necessary. Let me add that it suffices simply to wave 
a bunch of hay in the air of the shed to make it as infective 
as the laboratory air. Even the unprotected head of my 
assistant when his body was carefully covered sufficed in 
some cases to carry the infection.” 
In some localities high above the sea level meat never 
putrifies, though exposed to the air and even the sunlight. 
In some places in the north-western territories of the United 
States when the settlers kill an ox or a deer they are ac- 
customed to hang the meat on a tree some twenty feet above 
the ground, fully exposed to the winds, and it does not 
putrefy, and why? Doubtless there is nothing to cause 
putrefactive germs to float so high above the ground. But 
place meat in a cellar there at the same time and it will 
putrefy. These germs seem to float near the ground, but 
not high above it. 
Edward King states that at the monastery at St. Bernard, 
in Switzerland, the dead never putrefy. After describing 
the manner of gaining entrance to the morgue there, and DEATH WITHOUT PUTREFACTION. 
229 
looking at the dead in the dim light, he writes concerning 
the first one which attracted his attention as follows (" Boston 
Journal,” Oct. 9, 1882) : " Pretty soon you discern that 
the face belongs to the body of a woman, and the woman is 
clasping to her breast the form of a tiny babe. The mother 
is seated on the ground, and appears to be dazed by the light 
pouring down into her darksome habitation. But oh, the 
horror of her face ! Here is death without decay; here, 
eight thousand feet above the sea-level, putrefaction is 
unknown.” 
Not only in the Alps and among the Rocky Mountains, 
but wherever the air or insects do not bear putrefactive 
germs, putrefaction is unknown. Floating disease germs 
are abundant during the existence of widespread epidemics. 
A fact which seems to indicate some connection betwe'en 
disease-germs and bacterial germs may be mentioned in 
regard to experiments made by Tyndall during the years 
1875 and 1876. During the latter part of 1876 epidemics 
wei’e quite general in London. Tyndall then found it much 
more difficult to sterilize infusions and keep them sterile than 
in 1875, when there was a time of general health. This of 
itself is not proof that these general epidemics, or the germs 
of these epidemics, were the direct cause of this difficulty of 
sterilizing the infusions, but the two certainly went together. 
The germs of contagious diseases are generally minute 
vegetable organisms ; but similar kinds of organisms pro- 
duce somewhat different results, or are sometimes modified by 
their surroundings. 
If such germs get access to dead animal matter they pro- 
duce putrefaction; but, if to living animals, they may 
produce fever or inflammation. 
Prof. Tyndall says : " A contagious disease may be defined 230 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
as a conflict between the person smitten by it and a specific 
organism, which multiplies at his expense, appropriating his 
air and moisture, disintegrating the tissues, and poisoning 
him by the decompositions incident to its growth.-’ 
But as late as 1875, at a meeting of the Pathological 
Society, Dr. H. C. Bastian admitted the coexistence of 
bacteria and contagious disease; but, ’'instead of consid- 
ering these organisms as ' probably the essence or an insep- 
arable part of the essence ’ of the contagium, Dr. Bastian 
contended that they were ' pathological products ’ spon- 
taneously generated in the body after it had been rendered 
diseased by the real contagium.” (Tyndall, "Floating 
Matter,” p. 93.) 
That is, although these germs are always present in zymotic 
diseases, Dr. Bastian contended that they were the result of 
the disease, instead of being the cause. 
In treating diseases it is important to understand whether 
these bacteria are the cause or the result of the disease; for 
if they are simply the result of the disease, it is of little 
avail if we destroy them ; but if they are the cause, it is of 
immense importance that they, if possible, be destroyed, 
that through their destruction diseases may be stayed. 
There can be no putrefaction nor fermentation without 
these germs, and hence, without them, there can be no dis- 
eases which are in their nature fermentable or putrefactive. 
Prof. Tyndall says ("Floating Matter of the Air,” p. 263) : 
" The most striking analogy between a contagium and a fer- 
ment is to be found in the power of indefinite self-multipli- 
cation possessed and exercised by both. You know the 
exquisitely truthful figures regarding leaven employed in the 
New Testament. • A particle hid in three measures of meal 
leavens it all. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. CONTAGIUM. 
231 
"In a similar manner, a particle of contagium spreads 
through the human body and may be so multiplied as to 
strike down whole populations. Consider the effect pro- 
duced upon the system by a microscopic quantity of the virus 
of small-pox. That virus is, to all intents and purposes, a 
seed. It is sown as yeast is sown ; it grows and multiplies 
as yeast &rows and multiplies, and it always reproduces 
itself/' 
Such germs may be scattered by the breath, or through 
perspiration, or be carried in the garments. It matters 
little, however, how they are carried (as to their practical, 
effects), for they are no respecters of persons, provided they 
find parties or substances which are susceptible to their influ- 
ences. These germs being seeds, the person attacked by 
them receives them as a field does the seeds of grain or vege- 
tables. It matters not whether these seeds are large enough 
to be seen by the eye, or so fine that they cannot be seen even 
with a microscope ; they are still seeds, and their progeny 
often increase and multiply as rapidly as do thistles when 
sown in a rich soil. I cannot better close the consideration 
on this point than by quoting from Prof. Tyndall’s " Float- 
ing Matter of the Air,” pp. 254, 255 : 
" Thus far, I think, we have made our footing sure. Let 
us proceed. Chop up a beefsteak and allow it to remain 
for two or three hours just covered with warm water; you 
thus extract the juice of the beef in a concentrated form. By 
properly boiling the liquid and filtering it you can obtain 
from it a perfectly transparent beef-tea. Expose a number 
of vessels containing this tea to the moteless air of your 
chamber; and expose a number of vessels containing pre- 
cisely the same liquid to the dust-laden ai”. In three days 
every one of the latter stinks, and, examined with the micro- 232 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
scope every one of them is found swarming with the bac- 
teria of putrefaction. After three months, or three years, 
the beef-tea within the chamber, if properly sterilized in the 
first instance, will be found as sweet and clear, and as free 
from bacteria, as it was at the moment when it was first put 
in. There is absolutely no difference between the air within 
and that without, save that the one is dustless the other 
dust-laden. Clinch the experiment thus. Open the door of 
your chamber and allow the dust to enter it. In three days 
afterwards you have every vessel within the chamber swarm- 
ing with bacteria, and in a state of active putrefaction. Here, 
also, the inference is quite as certain as in the case of the 
powder sown in your garden. Multiply your proofs by 
building fifty chambers instead of one, and by employing 
every imaginable infusion of wild animals and tame ; of flesh, 
fish, fowl, and viscera; of vegetables of the most various 
kinds. If in all these cases you find the dust infallibly 
producing its crop of bacteria, while neither the dustless air 
nor the nutritive infusion, nor both together, are ever able to 
produce this crop, your conclusion is simply irresistible that 
the dust of the air contains the germs of the crop which has 
appeared in your infusions. I repeat there is no inference 
of experimental science more certain than this one. In the 
presence of such facts, to use the words of a paper lately 
published in the ' Philosophical Transactions,’ 'it would be 
simply monstrous to affirm that these swarming crops of 
bacteria are spontaneously generated.’ ” 
In a former chapter I stated that there is no reliable evi- 
dence that "spontaneous generation” now exists, and that 
there is no credible evidence that any life now is produced 
except from antecedent life. That completes one step. From 
analogy we may infer that if the doctrine of " spontaneous DUKE OF ARGYLL. 
233 
generation ” is false now probably it was always so ; and 
that the laws of nature as regards the production of life have 
never changed since they were first instituted. 
Life only from antecedent life is the present law. But 
this does not inform us whence life originally came. There 
must have been a beginning of terrestrial life. But the 
great fountain of life may have had no beginning. There 
must have been during past eternity a time or point when 
life could not be derived from antecedent life. It seems that 
there must have been a first life, —and nothing can be before 
the first. 
Nothing now occurs without an antecedent cause. But 
there must have been a point or time when there could not 
be an antecedent cause ; and thus we seem to be again forced 
back upon a self-existing cause, or " cause of causes.” It 
seems to me that all life had its origin in the great first life. 
Here we have to deal with original causes, concerning which 
it is said that we can know nothing. 
It is true that the human mind cannot comprehend original 
causes, but it can, in a measure, understand the force of the 
declaration made to Moses : "I am that I am.” And until 
some man can show a cause for the origin of life which is 
more likely to be true, we must look to the great " I Am ” as 
the fountain from which all terrestrial life came. 
The Duke of Argyll, quoted before (p. 272, "Reign of 
Law ”), says : "It is the great mystery of our being that 
we have powers impelling us to ask such questions on the 
history of Creation, when we have no powers enabling us to 
solve them. Ideas and faint suggestions of reply are ever 
passing across the outer limits of the Mind, as meteors pass 
across the margin of the atmosphere ; but we endeavor in vain 
to grasp or understand them. The faculties both of reason 234 
THE DEVELOPMENT OE LIFE. 
and of imagination fall back with a sense of impotence upon 
some favorite phrase some form of words built up out of 
the materials of analogy, and out of the experience of a 
Mind, which, being finite, is not creative. We beat against 
the bars in vain. The only real rest is in the confession of 
ignorance, and the confession, too, that all ultimate physical 
Truth is beyond the reach of Science.” 
And emphatically there is no place where we intellectually 
" beat against the bars in vain ” with greater certainty than 
with the question, " Whence is life?” unless we are willing 
to refer its origin to the Great First, or Self-existent Life. INCREASING SIZE OF THE BRAIN. 
235 
CHAPTER X. 
DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
The questions already discussed lead to further inquiries 
concerning inherited traits of character and the increased 
development of the brain during past ages. 
Where shall we find a limit to the increasing size of 
the brain and the consequent enlargement of intellectual 
capacities ? 
The brains of vertebrate animals have been increasing in 
size and activity for many thousand years. The average 
European human brain of the males is now larger than it 
was one hundred years ago. 
Prof. Marsh, in his lecture on "Vertebrate Life in 
America,” shows that there was a general increase of the 
size of brains as long ago as the Tertiary period. On p. 
48, he writes: "The real progress of mammalian life in 
America, from the beginning of the Tertiary to the present, 
is well illustrated by the Brain-growth, in which we have 
the key to many other changes. 
" The earliest known Tertiary mammals all had very small 
brains, and in some forms this organ was proportionally less 
than in certain Reptiles. There was a gradual increase in 
the size of the brain during this period, and it is interest- 
ing to find that this growth was mainly confined to the 
cerebral hemispheres, or higher portion of the brain. In 
most groups of mammals, the brain has gradually become 
more convoluted, and thus increased in quality, as well as 236 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
quantity. In some, also, the cerebellum and olfactory 
lobes, the lower parts of the brain, have even diminished in 
size. In the long struggle for existence during Tertiary 
time the big brains won, then as now; and the increas- 
ing power thus gained rendered useless many structures 
inherited from primitive ancestors, but no longer adapted 
to new conditions.” 
If we believe that men have been developed from a lower 
race of animals during the long past ages, may it not be 
reasonable to presume that in future ages men may become 
developed into a still higher race of beings? Why may 
they not become as much superior to any of the present 
races of men as these are superior to any of the present 
species of apes ? This would be carrying development 
analogies as at present expounded to their legitimate 
conclusions. 
However, it would seem evident that a limit to this 
increasing brain development and expanding intellectual 
power must be reached some time, and certain facts, taken 
by themselves, would seem to indicate that this limit is 
already nearly reached in man. I will briefly state some 
of these facts : 
First. The tendency of the highest civilization is to de- 
crease rather than increase the size of the female brain. 
The size of the female brain in London, Paris and Berlin 
is now less than it is among women in localities where 
society is less highly organized. The brains of males and 
females among savage or semi-savage races are nearly equal 
in size ; but in London and Paris the average female brain 
weighs about five ounces less, or about ten per cent, less, 
than the average male brain. Of course, the female brain 
becomes more convoluted and of finer quality in highly INTELLECTUAL QUALITIES. 
237 
civilized communities than among the uneducated tribes or 
races. 
Second. It is seldom that women of very high intel- 
lectual abilities now marry men of very strong mental cast; 
and, on the other hand, it is quite uncommon for a man of 
a very intellectual cast to select a wife with marked intel- 
lectual power; hence men of extraordinary mental gifts are 
not to be expected from such unions. A large proportion 
of the women of the strongest intellectual abilities never 
choose to marry, and of those who do choose to marry, few 
have children, or, if they have children, it is seldom more 
than one or two. 
The author of " Conflict in Nature and Life ” says, on 
p. 424 : " This is to be observed in the many unfortunate 
marriages of literary and other intellectual people. If they 
secure in connubial relations intellectual equality and com- 
panionship, there is apt to be no issue, in which case marriage 
fails of its end. It is a matter of common remark, that the 
distinctively intellectual marry the unintellectual, and fail 
completely of companionship, and hence the unhappiness of 
so many of this class in their marriage relations.” 
Now, if high intellectual and moral qualities are inherited, 
and women of genius have no children, or if the men of 
genius do not marry women of strong intellectual power, 
how are very high intellectual and moral qualities to be 
transmitted from parents to children? The intellectual and 
moral qualities of the mother show quite as plainly as those 
of the father in the children. 
Some careful students assert that there are no very marked 
examples of men of genius who did not have intellectual 
mothers. By intellectual as applied to mothers who pro- 
duce men of great intellectual strength, I do not mean 
O O 7 238 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
necessarily what are commonly styled educated women, but 
mothers who have well-developed brains, with strong and 
vigorous mental make-up, so that if their lives were given to 
literature or science they would rank among the intellectual 
women of the age. It is not education that is inherited, 
but the ability to become educated, or the mental constitu- 
tion on which to engraft an education. 
The desire for offspring is a natural one; but, if the in- 
tellectual organs largely predominate, it is quite natural that 
the desire for children should be weak, in fact so weak that 
highly intellectual women naturally strive to avoid the cares, 
risks and responsibilities of maternity. Besides, the pains 
and risks of maternity are much less with those who have 
a good amount of physical exercise in the open air than 
with those who live in luxury, or have more mental and less 
physical exercise. Nature here points the way, and those 
who attempt to go counter to the way she has marked out 
will not succeed in riding over her decrees. In fact, her 
decrees in this respect are unalterable, and the anathema of 
sterility is written against such as flagrantly disobey her 
mandates. 
Again, intelligence and the size of the brain bear a 
striking relation to each other. If the brain in both parents 
is developed to a great extent, and the offspring inherit this 
extreme development, births will be correspondingly more 
difficult. This will prevent the production of children with 
heads above a certain size; and here again nature has set 
up a bound that cannot be leaped over. 
Dr. Dunglison (in " Human Physiology,” vol. 2, p. 447) 
says : " The records of the Dublin hospital showed that there 
died during the process of parturition, . . . and probably 
as a consequence of the injuries to which they were sub- EXCESS OF MALE BIRTHS. 
239 
jected, 151 male children for every 100 female. There was 
thus an excess of 50 male deaths amongst every 250 chil- 
dren, or 20 in every 100, referable, according to Dr. 
Simpson, to the greater size of the head of the male infant.” 
Further, he adds, "we may take it for granted that, on a 
low computation, one in every 50 children dies during 
labor.” According to further computations, of the 500,000 
children born in Great Britain, about " 6,500 of the offspring 
die during labor, and one-fifth of that number are lost in 
consequence of the sex and size of the male child.” 
"In Great Britain, therefore, the lives of 1,300 infants 
are lost annually in childbirth from the operation of this 
agency.” 
Not only the risk of the child’s dying during labor will be 
increased as the size of its head becomes greater, but the 
risk to the mother in labor will be augmented by the increase 
of the size of the head. 
After stating that the number of male births in Europe is 
about 106 to 100 female births, Darwin says (p. 243, 
"Descent of Man”); "Prof. Faye remarks that 'a still 
greater preponderance of males would be met with if death 
struck both sexes in equal proportion in the womb, and 
during birth. But the fact is, that for every 100 still-born 
females, we have, in several countries, from 134.6 to 144.9 
still-born males. During the first four or five years of life, 
also, more male children die than females; for example, 
in England, during the first year, 126 boys die for every 
100 girls, a proportion which in France is still more un- 
favorable.’ ... We have before seen that the male 
sex is more variable in structure than the female ; and vari- 
ations in important organs would generally be injurious. 
But the size of the body, and especially of the head, being 240 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
greater in male than female infants is another cause; for the 
males are thus more liable to be injured during parturition. 
Consequently the still-born males are more numerous.” 
But there is still another serious bar to the upward intel- 
lectual progress of men. Statistics show that with largely 
increased size and activity of the brain come certain mental 
diseases. Melancholia, insanity and a disposition to suicide 
are alarmingly on the increase among the highest-cultivated 
races. These almost universal accompaniments of the 
highest civilization tend to thin out those who might other- 
wise become the most intellectual. 
But, in regard to the necessity for large brains through 
which to manifest great mental power, the objection is made 
that some men with small heads accomplish more than others 
with large heads; so what is the necessity of laying so 
much stress upon the size of the brains ? Some men with 
small bodies have more muscular strength than other men 
with large and apparently well-developed bodies. But does 
this indicate any general advantage of small bodies when 
muscular power is needed? As a general rule (as all know) 
a well-built man weighing two hundred pounds has more 
muscular power than another of similar proportions who 
weighs one hundred and fifty pounds. The same general 
rule applies to mental power, in connection with the size of 
a man’s brain. Some brains are of finer texture, better dis- 
tributed, more convoluted, and consequently more active; 
but general rules concerning size and quality apply to both 
brain and muscle. 
We find the assertion that certain great men have had 
small heads, and from this fact an attempt has been made 
to discredit the theory that size represents the measure of 
power in the intellectual faculties; but I have yet to learn SIZE OF THE BRAIN. 
241 
(as a general rule) anything which shows that size is not 
very important in the brain, if we wish for intellectual 
power. If the size of the brain is of little importance, why 
is it that those whose brains weigh less than thirty-five 
ounces are almost invariably idiots? 
The most conspicuous exception to the general rule con- 
cerning large brains is exemplified in J. F. L. Haussman, a 
German mineralogist, whose brain was under the average 
weight, it being only forty-three and one-quarter ounces, or 
over five ounces less than average weight of the brains of 
his countrymen. But Haussman died at the age of seventy- 
seven, or at an age when the brain weighs nearly ten per 
cent, less than in early life. At the age of thirty-five 
probably his brain was nearly the average weight. 
I have not seen a likeness of Haussman, but I believe 
such would show that his head was long and narrow, and 
with a large part of it in front. The nearest case to this 
that I have known is that of J. G. J. Hermann, the Ger- 
man philologist, whose brain weighed forty-six and one-half 
ounces, or two and one-half ounces less than the average 
weight; and yet he became quite learned, and very popular 
with German students. 
Soon after Gambetta’s death many newspapers published 
the statement that his brain weighed only forty-six ounces, 
or three ounces less than the average weight of the brain 
among educated Frenchmen. Per contra, the statement 
was published later that Dr. Laborde, who examined Gam- 
betta’s brain, reported to the "Faculty of Medicine” that 
"the brain was of exceptional size,” and highly convoluted 
in "the regions assigned as the centre of the power of 
language.” This latter statement seems much more likely 
to be true than the former. However, a brain of average 242 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
size, having a large proportion of it in the frontal region, 
will give much more intellectual acumen and force than a 
brain considerably larger if a large proportion of it is in 
the regions representing the animal passions. 
We do not look for any strong intellectual force if the brain 
is not well developed in the frontal regions. Not only the 
quality of the brain but its proper shape has much to do 
with the manifestations of mental power. These, properly 
correlated with size, will give a general measure of brain 
power. 
Bain supposes that all our intelligence, including memory, 
is located in the gray substance which envelops and enters in 
among the convolutions of the brain. This gray matter 
averages about one-tenth of an inch in thickness in the aver- 
age healthy human brain. But supposing that in excep- 
tional cases this gray matter should be double the average 
thickness, and be of good quality, should we not naturally 
expect extraordinary manifestations of mental power, accord- 
ing to the size of the brain ? 
The writer has frequently heard it stated that the heads 
of Lord Byron and Napoleon were small; but Huxley states 
that the brain of Byron weighed 1807 grammes, or over sixty- 
three and a half ounces, or over fourteen ounces more than 
the average brain of Englishmen. 
Napoleon’s biographer states that the head of Napoleon 
was one of the largest and best formed he ever saw. The 
brain of Napoleon weighed slightly less than Byron’s, or a 
little over sixty-two ounces. 
According to Prof, Calderwood’s published tables, the 
brains of Daniel Webster and Louis Agassiz each weighed 
only about fifty-three and a half ounces, or four and a half 
ounces above the average brains among the most cultivated LARGE BRAINS. 
243 
races. But Dr. W. A. Hammond says that "Webster’s 
brain (allowance being made for disease which existed) 
weighed sixty-three and three-fourths ouncesand further, 
that his " cranium was the largest on record, being one hun- 
dred and twenty-two inches.” And the writer has seen it 
stated elsewhere that the brain of Webster weighed over 
sixty-two ounces; and he believes the larger figures are 
correct. Prof. O. S. Fowler, who measured Webster’s 
head, writes, "The author found Webster’s massive head to 
measure over twenty-four and a half inches.” Fowler also 
states that his forehead was uncommonly high. 
Quatrefages states that it has been reported that the brain 
of Oliver Cromwell weighed over seventy-eight ounces ; but, 
he adds, " There is not the certainty we should wish for about 
these figures.” 
But it should be borne in mind that the weight of the 
brain does not always bear the same ratio to the skull 
capacity; that is, the specific gravity of the brain in certain 
persons is greater than in others. 
Fowler states that the head of Napoleon Bonaparte 
measured over twenty-four inches in circumference. Dr. 
Gall states that " Moderns have (in their pictures) left 
Napoleon’s head in its natural size, but placed it on a body 
of colossal proportions, to make it conform to their ideas of 
proportion.” 
Ben. Franklin’s head measured considerably over twenty- 
four inches in circumference. Cuvier’s brain weighed over 
sixty-four and a half ounces, and, going through the whole 
line of illustrious men, we find, as a general rule (with very 
few exceptions) that large brains, if well proportioned, 
indicate great mental force ; but a man with a brain of only 
average size, if it is uncommonly active, may exhibit con- 244 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
siderable acumen. But I doubt if a profound and compre- 
hensive thought ever originated in a brain of much less than 
average size. No doubt that thorough investigation would 
put to rest all assertions that great power can be found in 
small brains, unless in very exceptional cases, and these will 
be as exceptional as instances of small men or small animals 
possessing surprising strength and activity. 
To illustrate, we may find a pugilist weighing one hundred 
and twenty pounds who may beat an ordinary man weigh- 
ing two hundred pounds, and this on account of his superior 
training and activity. The same rules may be applied to 
mental manifestations, or brain power. 
Here, then, is an important point regarding the brain 
structure. But if the brain and nervous system are de- 
veloped out of due proportion to the muscular system, so 
that the rest of the body is incapable of furnishing proper 
sustenance to the brain, then disastrous results are sure to 
follow ; and here is another limit which cannot be passed. 
But, says one, the law of Evolution, through which the 
less useful disappears, and the most useful is preserved, will 
so adjust the mutually dependent conditions of mind and 
body that a general improvement in both physical and 
mental capacity may be confidently looked for. 
But nature has apparently set certain bounds to this de- 
velopment, through the well-known fact that generally the 
less developed races increase faster than the highly developed 
races. In many civilized communities the higher classes are 
running out, and they would, before long, become extinct 
if it was not for the admixture of their blood with that of 
descendants of lower classes. Says a very vigorous writer : 
"In France there is greater prolificacy among the inhabi- 
tants of the poorer than among those of the richer depart- INCREASE OF BIRTHS AMONG LOWER RANKS. 
245 
ments. The aristocracies are everywhere running out, as 
in the Roman empire, and they would become extinct but 
for constant accessions from the ranks below; and some 
come up from almost the very bottom. Reigning dynasties 
are not apt to last long, and once a family has reached the 
pinnacle of human greatness its doom is written.” 
As an example of this, take the Bourbon family, which 
one hundred years ago controlled about half the thrones in 
Europe. Where now are its prominent descendants ? 
Look at the increase of the former slave population in the 
United States. Where and when has a highly educated 
and highly developed race increased and multiplied as rapidly 
as they did ? Who now rear the largest families ? the 
laboring men, farmers, and mechanics, or those who live in 
habits of laborious study? 
In order to facilitate the production of a superior class of 
children and the rearing of prosperous families there must be 
a somewhat befitting sympathy between the parents. This 
sympathy is much oftener wanting among the highly educated 
classes. Delauney says ("Popular Science Monthly,” Decem- 
ber, 1881) : "The biological considerations we have adduced 
explain to us why the two sexes tend to diverge from each 
other as we proceed from the lower to the higher classes. 
Both sexes among peasants and working-people having 
nearly the same moral and intellectual faculties, they can 
sympathize with each other, and have no reason for becoming 
estranged. It is different among the intelligent classes, 
where the two sexes, in consequence of the increasing pre- 
eminence of man, not having the same ideas, the same senti- 
ments, nor the same tastes, cannot understand each other, 
and form separate coteries. Moralists have long taken 
notice of the separation, which is of force in the family and 246 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
in the meetings of men and of women, which seem to be 
increasing from year to year.” 
It will be said that this divergence should not be allowed 
to exist. Very true; but human beings will consult their 
own tastes. If we assert that such divergences are evidence 
of depravity, that does not change natural laws. 
Nature will not lessen her demands at the requests of phi- 
losophers or military chieftains. Her demands must be paid 
to the uttermost farthing. Without care the whole tendency 
of animal and vegetable nature is to revert to the original 
type. It is only through struggles that beneficent develop- 
ment takes place. Without this continual struggle the 
descendants of present highly developed races of men would 
go back towards the original type much faster than they came 
up from that condition. By original condition I do not 
mean that they came from a radically different race, but 
that without this struggle the tendency is to revert to the 
primeval condition of man. 
We are told that the general course of Evolution is for- 
ward, and that every succeeding generation is becoming, on 
the whole, better and more wisely developed. But it is a 
question whether we have at present any living men who are 
superior in mind or in real philosophic strength to Thales, 
who flourished six hundred years before Christ, or Socrates, 
four hundred years before Christ, or Plato his disciple, or 
Democritus, or Zeno the Stoic, or Aristotle. I fail to per- 
ceive one Avhit of gain in two thousand years in the vigor 
of thought, clearness of expression, or acuteness in meta- 
physical reasoning. And if the present generation had been 
placed here, with no printed books, and no greater facilities 
for education than were common two thousand years I 
do not believe the living world would show itself superior to, 247 
ANCIENT GREEKS «. ENGLISHMEN. 
if it would equal in intellectual strength, that of two thou- 
sand years ago. Let this expectation of any surprising intel- 
lectual development from the present tendency of thought 
be given up. A vigorous and apparently well-informed 
writer contends that the ancient Greeks as a race were supe- 
rior in intellectual ability to the present race of Englishmen ; 
and much may be said which seems to accord with his state- 
ment. Another fact is well worth considering. We have 
no reliable secular histories which date back over four 
thousand years. The oldest written language, notwithstand- 
ing extravagant claims to a very high antiquity of some Ori- 
ental languages, probably does not date back five thousand 
years. How did it happen that the ancient Greeks, within 
about two thousand years after the invention of the first 
written language, became developed to such a height of intel- 
lectual vigor that there should be no perceptible gain in 
intellectual acumen or strength during the next two thousand 
years, if men had been aeons in becoming developed from 
animals to real men ? Is it not strange that there should be 
such a sudden stop in the growth of intellectual acumen so 
soon after the race of men got so fairly away from brute life 
as to become capable of leaving historical records ? 
It may be asserted that, with proper educational privileges, 
two thousand years is long enough to develop a race from a 
very low to a very high state of intelligence. Granted ; but 
then let us go back more than a thousand years prior to the 
Grecian development, or to within a thousand years of any 
generally acknowledged date of the first written language, 
or to the time when it is generally believed that Moses, the 
Hebrew law-giver lived. Can any one justly assert that any 
man has lived during this century who has shown a greater 
intellect than the laws and precepts attributed to Moses 248 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. 
would indicate that he possessed ? His civil code is the basis 
of much of our present law, and in many respects it has not 
been improved upon. 
If it is asserted that this was in consequence of Divine 
inspiration, I shall not deny that; but, inspiration or no inspi- 
ration , God has never used weak intellects to lay foundations 
of laws and customs destined to last thousands of years 
among the most learned and enlightened nations. Even if 
the Pentateuch was written from traditions by some one who 
lived in later ages, as some suppose, that does not lessen 
the great prominence of Moses as an actual law-giver. 
Moses exhibited intense intellectual vigor, and no higher 
has been seen during the past thirty-four hundred years. 
We are not warranted in expecting that men will soon 
make a decided gain in their general intellectual strength. 
O O O 
But, to make a wider application of this principle, we see 
that the course of development or degradation of races of 
men is quite similar to that of the rise and fall of families. 
But the time required for the rise and fall of a race is much 
longer than that for the rise and fall of a single family. The 
family may be taken as a type of a race. All must see that 
a certain amount of development or degradation exists in 
many directions. This accords with the general principles 
of Evolution, and apparently applies not only to men but 
to the whole animal creation. 
But whatever one’s opinion concerning the past development 
of the human race may be, and if we believe that the race 
has nearly reached its limit of physical and intellectual de- 
velopment, may we not at least fondly hope that in moral 
ideas and moral character men will yet reach a much higher 
plane than has ever been reached by any class of men ? If 
the course of nature generally tends towards higher ends, HOPE 
249 
why, at least, should not the moral sense and moral faculties 
be allowed to reach a much higher standard than has hereto- 
fore been reached by any people? 
Who knows but the hopes of a blissful immortal life, which 
were long ago cherished by heathen philosophers like Socrates 
and Cicero, and in later ages by millions of Christians, may 
be the silent outspeakings of this possibly universal law of 
nature ? 
Hope has always claimed that " there’s a good time com- 
ing.” 
Who can properly estimate the moral possibilities which 
lie as yet undeveloped in the womb of the future ? There is 
certainly abundant need of and opportunity for a great im- 
provement in this direction. PABT 11. 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
CHAPTER XI. 
TO WHAT EXTENT WILL ONE’S BELIEF MODIFY HIS MORAL 
CHARACTER ? 
Some assert that the influence of belief, especially 
religious belief, is merely nominal. 
A distinction should be drawn between what a man 
believes and what he professes to believe. It is not 
profession, or what a man professes, that has lasting power, 
but the belief which is ingrained in the character will have 
a powerful effect upon his whole life. 
If a man believes that by investing in certain property 
he will become rich, does any one suppose that such belief 
will not influence his acts? In religious matters, if a man 
hardly knows whether he believes or not, but simply falls 
in with the current, as many do, and professes to believe 
with the majority, because it is easier to go with than 
against the current, such belief is of little value, and will 
be likely to change as soon as his surroundings change. 
But if a man has a firm conviction that a certain course 
is right, and also determines to be himself right, then his 
belief avails much towards giving character to his whole life. 254 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
It has been said that Washington believed that "honesty 
is the best policy ; ” and doubtless he was correct. But if a 
man’s honesty does not spring from a higher motive than 
common policy, it will not be of a very high type. The 
same rules apply to a man’s belief in a future life and its 
rewards or retributions. If he really believes that he will 
consciously exist in a future world, and that what he does 
here will have an important effect on his future happiness, 
most certainly this belief will exert a powerful influence in 
shaping his acts. But if he has simply a half-conscious 
idea that he may possibly exist, or perhaps not exist, then 
such a belief cannot have any marked influence on his 
character. 
Hugh Miller says : " That belief in the existence after 
death, which forms the distinguishing instinct of humanity, 
is too essential a part of man’s moral constitution not to be 
missed when away; and so, when once fairly eradicated, 
the life and conduct rarely fail to betray its absence.” 
The belief of a nation will influence the character of its 
laws and habits, for nations are made up of individuals. 
If the individuals of a free nation believe in honesty and 
integrity the rulers will feel this influence, and we may expect 
an equitable enforcement of just laws. 
The decline of religious belief is now making itself very 
apparent in European countries, controlling, in some respects, 
their politics. Formerly, in Italy, the words of the pope 
and the priesthood, in many respects, had the force of law. 
But times have wonderfully changed. Many who once 
bowed submissively now care little what the pope and 
priests may say. Those who have relapsed from belief into 
non-belief are very different from what they formerly were, 
and new motives must be supplied in order to influence their BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY. 
255 
acts. Some, who formerly believed in the immortality of the 
soul, now believe that the death of the body is the last of them. 
If you wish to keep such in a right course it will not do to 
appeal to the motives which formerly influenced them. It 
ever has been very dangerous to the welfare of the state for 
lawless classes not to feel some sense of moral responsibility ; 
for you can never tell to what excesses such may go while 
unrestrained by religious or moral belief. This is more 
especially true when the immoral become atheistic. But I 
would not advise preaching untruth to control even the 
immoral, for untruth is not to be defended. "Truth is 
mighty and must prevail,” and no lasting good can come 
from teaching error. But it is not teaching error to pro- 
claim to its fullest extent the doctrine of moral responsi- 
bility. 
I am well aware that many have tried to show that there 
is no unvarying moral standard, and have further attempted 
to show that all our ideas of right and wrong are connected 
with remembrances of pleasures or pains; or are the 
inherited echoes of pleasures or pains experienced by our 
ancestors in connection with various courses of conduct. 
Keferring to this idea, Mansel says (p. 143, "Metaphysics ”) : 
" Pleasure and pain, so far as they are objects of desire and 
aversion, do not probably lie in the things by which they 
are caused, but in the actions by which those things are 
brought into contact with the person affected. But the 
actions, and, in some degree also, the feelings which prompt 
them, may be exhibited in another point of view not merely 
as pleasant or painful, but as right or wrong. The exist- 
ence of these terms, or their equivalents, in every language,, 
indicates a corresponding phenomenon in the universal con- 
sciousness of mankind which no effort of ingenuity can 256 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
explain away. Indeed, the very ingenuity of the various 
attempts that have been made to identify the conception of 
right with that of expedient, or agreeable, or any other 
quality, is itself a witness against them ; for no such elabo- 
rate reasoning would be required were it not necessary to 
silence or pervert the instinctive testimony of a too stubborn 
consciousness.” 
Even if the present popular assumption that our moral 
intuitions and tendencies are inherited, or have descended 
to us as the unconscious effects of pains or pleasures expei’i- 
enced by our ancestors, is correct; or if they are inherited 
as directly as the peculiar qualities of a pointer dog are, 
that fact in no wise changes another fact, viz., that a certain 
course of conduct will (all things considered) be the very 
best course a man can take. That best course is the only 
perfect one, and is imperatively demanded by a perfect 
moral standard. 
Even if our moral sentiments and feelings have been 
changed or modified in the progress of Evolution through 
many generations, that fact does not obliterate or change 
the other probable fact, that the Deity, or some being or 
power which established the very laws of nature, has 
predestined this very course from the very beginning, and 
thus this very course of development may be in accordance 
with an original design. 
The course of development which has resulted in our 
present moral intuitions or sentiments may have come 
through natural laws ; but full compliance with these laws 
may constitute conformity with a perfect moral standard. 
Perhaps a better appreciation or more correct apprehen- 
sion of moral laws may yet become developed as education 
and general intelligence increase. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. 
257 
Loss of belief in moral responsibility, with the unprin- 
cipled, leaves the impression that they may do as they 
please, no matter how inhuman or wrong the objects they 
wish to accomplish, provided they have physical force 
sufficient to accomplish their purposes. We see this prin- 
ciple of action cropping out in Ireland, Germany, France, 
Italy, and, in fact, to some extent in almost every civilized 
country. 
It was reported (“ Contemporary Review,” 1882) that 
in a debate in the Italian Parliament on matters pertaining 
to the welfare of the poorer classes in Italy, Signor Gio- 
vagnoli said: "In times past religious belief helped to 
mitigate the sufferings of the poorer classes. But now that 
science has done away with religious delusions even the 
poor aspire in this world to their share of happiness, of 
bread, of meat, and of wine ; and unless science can also 
do away with the delusion of these necessities, social violence 
will make short work of legislation and legislators.” 
The atheistic scout the idea that their teachings tend to 
encourage social violence. But what docs the history of the 
past show? The prophecy of Signor Giovagnoli, "that 
social violence will make short work of legislation and 
legislators,” will probably come true, provided unprin- 
cipled masses ever become strong enough to overpower 
proper authority, if science dispels all of what he calls 
"religious delusions;” for, under such circumstances, the 
partially dependent classes will not submit, as they formerly 
submitted, and will, as far as possible, take matters into 
their own hands, regardless of right or wrong. Ignorant 
men cannot be governed by philosophical appeals, for they 
do not comprehend such appeals ; but history abundantly 
proves that they can comprehend the commands of unprin- 258 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
cipled adventurers who promise bread or blood, and greater 
influence, both social and political. 
This view concerning the actions of masses maddened by 
wrongs, either real or supposed, and their well-known 
brutality under such circumstances, well accounts for the 
blasphemous and atheistical utterances of the most fanatical 
of the Communistic leaders. They well know that the first 
step towards getting the ignorant and vicious populace into 
condition to be impelled to deeds of violence and outrage is 
to destroy in their minds all idea of moral responsibility. 
No prominent people or nation having clear ideas of moral 
responsibilities ever existed which did not also have some 
sense of religious responsibility. 
Thus the statement of the signor, above quoted, properly 
translated, means this ; that, all hopes of immortality being 
given up, the unprincipled and vicious classes will have 
nothing but present fear to restrain them ; and if they should 
lose their lives while in open violation of law or right, it 
would be of no great consequence, for that would be the end 
of them, and hence they could be as outrageous as they de- 
sire, without any lasting harm to themselves. Let the idea 
get firmly implanted in the minds of the majority of a people 
that there is no conscious hereafter, and before long the 
probable result will be violence and brutality such as the 
world has never witnessed except in the worst states of 
barbarism. 
I am aware that the assertion has been made that there 
are some four hundred millions of Buddhists who are practi- 
cally atheists, and do not believe in immortality, and that 
they live peaceably and cultivate the moral virtues. But 
such an assertion concerning their atheism and disbelief in 
immortality needs to be received with many reservations. BUDDHISM. 
259 
First, the Buddhists might be properly called agnos- 
tics, rather than atheists ; for they do not deny that there 
was a first cause, but simply leave inquiries into this out of 
view. They inculcate practical duties rather than inquiries 
into what is beyond the comprehension of mortals. 
It is true that, in a certain sense, they do not believe in 
immortality, but they do believe in a future life, and their 
belief in ten billions of years of happiness in one of their 
heavens, or ten millions of years of misery in one of their 
hells, ought to be a pretty good substitute for a belief in 
immortality, or at least a sufficient inducement to avoid their 
hells by a virtuous life, and to gain their heaven by proper 
devotion to the tenets of Buddhism. 
Their Nirvana, instead of meaning annihilation, as that 
word is commonly understood, is very different from that, 
and is rather an absorption into the infinite than absolute 
non-existence. But they expect to be dead to all earthly 
pleasures and pains ; and this, in principle, is not very differ- 
ent from that perfectly inactive state of rest which some 
Christian teachers in former times talked about, viz., a 
Sabbath of inactivity rather than one of activity. 
For practical purposes, Buddhism enjoins the performance 
of moral duties and living a virtuous life, and also urges 
their necessity in a manner quite similar to that employed by 
the apostle Paul; and thus the assertion that the belief of 
Buddhists is nearly equivalent to modern atheism is very far 
from being true. 
We can imagine in a faint way what the result of genuine 
national atheism would probably be, from what was done 
during the French revolution, though only a fraction of the 
violent agitators there were entirely free from traces of this 
so-called "religious delusion.” Had it not been for the little 
o 260 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
of this restraining influence left, probably three murders 
would have been committed where there was one, and the 
horrors of such a situation can be better imagined than 
O 
described. Though I use the term "religious delusion," let 
it not be understood that I believe pure religion has not a 
real existence. 
Religious sentiments are, in some sense, a part of man’s 
very nature. lam aware that revolting crimes have been 
committed under the plea of defence of pure religion. It is 
too true that fanaticism and bigotry, both religious and 
political, have been the parents of grievous evils. One 
might well exclaim, " O Religion! ” as well as " O 
Liberty ! what crimes have been committed in thy name ! ’’ 
When scientific men deal with mathematical or other 
problems which can be demonstrated, we may generally put 
confidence in their conclusions; for, if they make mistakes 
in their reasoning, such mistakes may be pointed out. But 
the moment scientists enter the regions of speculation their 
conclusions are no more reliable than the conclusions of 
speculative theologians. Both are right so long as they 
confine their statements to known facts ; but both may be 
entirely in error in their speculative conclusions. 
We are answered that the honest scientist is seeking for 
truth alone and he has no reason to deceive the people. 
What reason has the honest theologian to deceive people ? 
There are scientific delusions as really as there are religious 
delusions ; and when they enter the regions of speculation 
both parties are equally likely to arrive at false conclusions. 
Let us disabuse ourselves of the idea that delusive ideas 
pertain exclusively to religious beliefs. The history of so- 
called scientific speculations shows that the fallacies of scien- 
tific hypotheses have been very extensive. POLITICAL EFFECTS. 
261 
But to return to the consideration of the political effects 
of a disbelief in religious and moral obligations. We are 
O c? 
aware of the ready answer, that eminent atheists do not show 
a blood-thirsty disposition. Granted; but men of their 
social and intellectual position are above the pinchings 
of want, and they are educated to a degree which enables 
them to see the untold evils that must result from a com- 
munistic outbreak, accompanied, as it would be, by outrages 
upon those called the upper classes; for they themselves 
belong to the upper classes, and their own personal interests 
are involved as directly as those of any other class, and 
hence we see them on the side of law and order. 
But, in case of a communistic rising, they could not 
control the result of their own teachings; and if in such a 
case they attempted to control the violent, they would fall 
before blind fury as soon as other persons. 
We are told that under a free government there is no 
danger of such outbreaks. Let us not deceive ourselves. 
We are also reminded of the benefits of intelligent instruc- 
tion and the great blessings that flow from general 
education ; and to that I say amen, provided the education 
is of the proper kind; but I have no sympathy with those 
who wish to let the moral education of children take care 
of itself. 
Much has been written about letting the generous 
natures of children be developed; but if they are brought 
up without moral restraint, how will their natures be 
developed ? 
If all the wishes of children are gratified, what kind of 
men shall we have ? In the majority of cases we shall have 
poor specimens of humanity. The passions of all need 
moral restraint, and unless children receive some kind of 262 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
moral as well as intellectual teaching they seldom become 
valuable citizens. 
One very singular fact connected with all philosophical 
inquiry into mental and moral acts is the mutual dependence 
of several apparently diverse beliefs. For instance, nearly 
all philosophers who believe in the existence of an Omnipotent 
Creator also believe in a future conscious existence. 
Nearly all who believe in a Creator believe also in the ex- 
istence of an absolutely unvarying moral standard, and that 
moral laws are as permanent and certain in their operations 
as the general laws of nature. Doubtless, if we could per- 
fectly comprehend all truth, we could understand what this 
standard requires, and all would be obliged to agree not only 
to the existence of this standard, but also to what men should 
do to conform to its requirements. 
It must not be understood, however, that a perfect moral 
standard would require that all persons should act alike in all 
cases ; for of necessity there must be different positions and 
circumstances in life. For instance, it might be in conform- 
ity with a perfect moral standard for one who is famishing 
with hunger to take and eat food, which under ordinary 
circumstances, would belong to another. 
Again, those who believe in an absolute moral standard 
generally believe in the immortality of the human soul. At 
first sight there would not seem to be any necessary or logi- 
cal connection between morality, God and immortality. But 
why should those who generally reject belief in the existence 
of an eternal moral standard and an eternal Law-giver at the 
same time disbelieve in the soul’s immortality ? 
Many atheists believe in morality and in the performance 
of moral duties; but as their standard of morality can 
admit of no obligations to any higher power than humanity WHAT IS MORALITY ? 
263 
itself, it cannot be an unvarying standard, for humanity is 
constantly changing. 
But what is morality ? What constitutes an act a moral 
one ? The lexicons tell us that " morality is the relation of 
conformity to the true moral standard, or rule.” But what 
is this standard which is called the true ? On what basis does 
it rest, and in what does it consist ? What is the real foun- 
dation on which the moral quality of an act must stand, and 
what is the abstract quality which expresses the difference 
between a moral act and an immoral one? There must 
be something in the very nature of things which underlies 
the principles upon which morality apparently rests. What 
is that foundation ? 
I am aware that many think it is not scientific to sup- 
pose the will of the Deity can have anything to do with the 
absolute moral quality of an act, and that the real quality is 
the same whether the act is in accordance with the will of 
the Deity or not. Such a position is satisfactory to such as 
do not believe the Deity ever made a revelation of His will 
to man. These assert that inasmuch as what seems moral to 
one may seem immoral to another, therefore there cannot be 
an absolute code of morals which is applicable to all men. 
Some trace all evil to selfishness, and others all good to un- 
selfishness. Still others assert that the moral quality of an 
act is entirely dependent upon its utility. 
Now I suppose that any act, which, taken in all its bear- 
ings, tends to the best good of mankind and their ultimate 
happiness, cannot be otherwise than moral; and it is also, 
in one sense, an act of highest utility. And, further, I 
cannot believe that the performance of any act which is 
strictly moral can be of ultimate injury to the doer, when 
we take into consideration all its bearing. An objection 264 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
may be noted in the case of a person who sacrifices his 
present interests, or his life, for the good of others. In case 
of one whose life is voluntarily sacrificed to save others the 
question may be raised how that can result in good to the 
one sacrificed? That raises another question which leads 
into realms that lie beyond the reach of human experiences, 
and hence, from want of any certain knowledge on this 
point, we must leave the question unanswered, or else refer 
its answer to a power or being wiser than we are. I cannot 
believe, however, that the principle of self-sacrifice has been 
placed in mankind except for wise reasons. But it seems 
natural to suppose that a perfect moral standard must be in 
harmony with the physical laws of the universe, or with 
what are called the laws of nature, for both are believed to 
be established by the same power. 
Following out this idea, we may suppose that, as a general 
rule, men who live up to the highest moral standard which 
commends itself to the judgment and reason of intelligent 
and enlightened men enjoy better health and live longer 
than those who are careless in regard to these things. Also, 
that the man who attempts to live up to the standard of 
morals set up by Jesus Christ will enjoy better health, and 
that (other things being equal) in consequence of this 
better health he may expect a longer life and much greater 
happiness than one who disregards this high standard of 
morals. 
The very fact that such physical and mental results follow 
high moral action seems to indicate, even if we assume that 
utility, or conformity with the laws of nature, forms the true 
basis of morals, that the maxims of Jesus, judged by either 
standard, are of the highest order of utility. And this fact, 
again, would seem to indicate that the origin of these maxims 265 
TEACHINGS OE CHRIST. 
may be found in the very highest wisdom. Can we then 
wonder that so many believe that these maxims and precepts 
were dictated by wisdom from above ? 
Of course, believers in the teachings of Christ and his 
apostles will readily acknowledge that some necessary logical 
connection must exist between belief and non-belief in God 
and belief or disbelief in the existence of the human soul. 
In regard to the question whether there is an unalterable 
moral standard, it seems evident that there can be no definite 
answer unless we first decide in our minds whether there 
is an Infallible Law-giver; or, in other words, we should 
first decide whether there is prepondering evidence of the 
existence of an Infinitely Wise Being or Power which 
established the laws that govern the universe. If such a 
Being exists, He may prescribe a standard which will be 
in complete harmony with universal laws. But if there is 
not clear evidence of the existence of such an Infinitely Wise 
Being or Power, then an unalterable moral standard may 
not be supposed to exist; for with changing circumstances 
or surroundings the quality of moral actions will be likely to 
change. 
Kant held that neither the existence of God, nor the 
immortality of the human soul, nor the freedom of the will 
could be demonstrated through any scientific arguments or 
speculations; and yet he believed in God, and in moral and 
religious obligations, though rejecting much which is taught 
as theology. He also believed in an unvarying moral 
standard, and in the freedom of the will, without which 
freedom these moral laws could not be obeyed ; and, further, 
that without the existence of" God and the soul’s immor- 
tality there would be no final cause or motive for human 
conduct.” "He further believed that men may be placed 266 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
in a state of felicity agreeable to morality, provided by and 
to be obtained through God, in another and a better life.” 
—("Penny Cyclopaedia.”) 
Kant’s opinion, though not capable of demonstration, 
cannot be refuted, and if the teachings of science are set 
up against a moral standard, one assertion will balance 
the other. Science is not genuine if it has no demonstrable 
basis ; and thus I believe that what is falsely called science 
may be at fault rather than belief in an infallible moral 
standard. Science should be definite, clear, and not delu- 
sive, and that which claims to be scientific, if it leads away 
from a proper moral standard, —if an unchangeable moral 
standard is not a myth, must be falsely called science. 
Much, however, is taught for science which cannot be 
disproved, but which, whether so intended or not, does 
tend to undermine ideas of any direct responsibility to a 
Supreme Intelligence. Doubtless some, who dislike to 
lessen conscientious regard for moral obligations, do teach 
what in most minds must raise questions which will of 
necessity cause them to doubt the existence of real moral 
obligations. 
Take for instance the question of the descent of man from 
the lower animals (provided it is shown that he has so 
descended), and this, with many, will have (though not 
justly) a direct bearing upon the question whether there can 
be any absolute standard of moral responsibility; for they 
will ask, if there is such a responsibility, where is the line 
between the brute and the human which marks the bounds 
of moral responsibility? This would seem like trying to 
draw a line between daylight and darkness. Where in the 
twilight does this line come? If the stronger and fiercer 
animal commits no wrong when it mutilates or drives away DOES MIGHT MAKE RIGHT ? 
267 
its weaker or less courageous relative, how can it be said 
that man does wrong when he commits a similar act, if he 
has descended from a like animal ? 
Does not this look like the doctrine that " Might makes 
right ? ” If the higher animals which appear to have in 
kind the general mental qualities that men possess commit 
acts of violence without incurring moral guilt, why should 
men, who are simply higher developed animals, be held 
morally responsible for like acts ? Human governments hold 
madmen and fools irresponsible, where men of intelligent 
and sane minds are held guilty, if they commit acts of 
violence. But on what law can this distinction be founded, 
if there is no absolute standard ? 
Every intelligent man at some time during his early child- 
hood has been considered irresponsible, but with the increase 
of intelligence there came a time when he became responsi- 
ble. Doubtless some reach a state of partial moral responsi- 
bility long before it is reached in all respects ; and perhaps 
some never reach that state in all respects. Probably in no 
two children will this moral responsibility be reached exactly 
alike, or at exactly the same age. A similar state may 
possibly have been reached between the brute and the 
human at some time during past ages, provided men have 
been developed from the brutes. 
But we ask at what stage of the evolution of man from 
the brute does moral responsibility commence? To whom 
does this responsibility or moral obligation run? Does it 
run to men, or to a higher power? How can it run to a 
higher power when we deny that there is a Supreme Law- 
giver? This is a practical question, for we want to know 
where moral responsibility commences and where the con- 
sciousness of right or wrong commences. Is conscience an 
O O 268 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
inborn faculty, or is it entirely the result of education ? Is 
it in the very composition of our natures ? 
Again, if conscience is inborn, is it a safe guide? Surely, 
if it is badly educated, all must know that it is not a safe 
guide. Then what is its value? Its natural voice would 
seem to he, "Be right, do rightly, act rightly; ” and even 
though it is not an infallible guide, men ought to be thank- 
ful for its warnings, for on just such warnings the safety 
and welfare of society largely depend. 
It seems to me that in man the sense of right and wrong is 
inborn ; but the standard according to which this inborn faculty 
acts is greatly modified or changed by circumstances of birth, 
education, and other surroundings. But these surroundings, 
while they modify the standard, which men in different 
localities accept, in no wise change the actual and absolute 
moral standard, any more than men of different ideas of 
geology can change the geological strata. The strata are 
there, and no man or set of men can place the granite above 
the limestone formations. The same Almighty Power 
which placed the granite on its everlasting foundations and 
in its present position has also (I believe) set up an equally 
solid and stable moral standard. But a difficulty occurs 
when men who are warped by their own desires and interests 
attempt to interpret or explain that standard; for the 
standard they accept and act upon is apt to be somewhere 
nearly on a plane with their desires. Hence the word im- 
perfect, both in their standards and their acts, may be 
justly written against the lives of all men who make or set 
up their own notions for a moral standard. And hence the 
necessity of some standard to which all can appeal as the 
one unerring moral standard. 
I think no one will dispute the desirability of such a DATA OF ETHICS. 
269 
standard, provided we could tell its exact limits and bounds. 
We have the " data of ethics ” from able writers ; but the 
very ablest of moral philosophers who argue from the light 
of science or of reason differ greatly among themselves in 
regard to the real force and position of these data. It seems 
evident that no perfect moral standard can be of human 
origin, for the moment we leave the demonstrable for the 
unknown, theories which look perfect to one seem very im- 
perfect to another, and thus endless discussions result. We 
need to deny the assumptions of a considerable part of what 
is supposed to be scientific concerning fundamental moral 
principles, because many of these rest upon questionable 
hypotheses rather than demonstrations. 
If, as claimed by Herbert Spencer and others, our moral 
ideas are based simply upon inherited instinct or impressions 
handed down through the experience of many generations, 
it does not seem probable that there can be any demonstrable 
moral standard ; for the strength of these inherited impres- 
sions will increase or decrease with the state of civilization 
and other surroundings. But, if moral impressions and 
ideas come entirely through inherited instinct, how does it 
happen that some men of very limited opportunities for 
education, and whose parents have not shown any extraordi- 
nary strength of moral development, have been so greatly 
ahead of all their contemporaries in the strength, depth, 
and clearness of their moral apprehensions? 
Take the case of Jesus Christ, for instance, and look at 
it from the Spencerian stand-point. Here we see a man 
having only limited opportunities for education, surrounded 
by and brought up among a people held under bondage by 
the Romans, burst forth as a moral light high above all 
other men who preceded or succeeded him. Leaving out 270 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
of view everything concerning his supposed miraculous 
birth and his Divine nature, and not affirming or denying 
anything concerning the nature of the miracles which the 
evangelists state that he performed, or whether he rose from 
the dead, as believed by Christians, we will now look at 
him merely as a man, as this evolutionary theory necessi- 
tates. I ask, how did it happen that Jesus Christ inherited 
such a wonderful depth and clearness of moral sense that 
he stands in this respect high above every other moral 
teacher who has ever lived ? 
Some have attempted to show that his moral precepts 
were not of much higher order than those of other teachers ; 
but until the works of such teachers are produced such 
assertions lack a proper foundation. Passages have been 
quoted from Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, Plato, and 
Socrates containing excellent moral precepts. Perhaps 
those quoting these precepts think they have made out a 
probable case; but, in so far as the writer is informed, all 
such quoted passages have failed to reach anywhere near the 
sublime moral heights of the teachings of Jesus. 
Such authors and quotations have to meet statements 
of candid infidels, who, having no belief in Christianity, 
yet have freely confessed that the moral teachings of Jesus 
are high above all the teachings of other men. Besides, 
some four hundred millions of the human race are nominal 
Christians, and the nations called Christian comprise the 
most highly educated and cultivated races on the globe. 
This fact indicates that great numbers of intelligent men 
believe that the utterances of Jesus are in a moral sense the 
highest ever proclaimed by man. This is a kind of testi- 
mony that no denials can shake. 
I am aware that the three hundred and seventy millions of 271 
BUDDHISTS v. CHRISTIANS. 
Buddhists may (as far as numbers go) be set over against 
the number of Christians, and that both Jesus and Buddha 
taught that total unselfishness is a high moral quality ; yet 
when we compare the results and the reasonableness of their 
lives and their teachings, we see that they are not at all 
comparable. Buddhists teach that Buddha, during one of 
his many lives, at one time saw a tigress and her cubs fam- 
ishing with hunger, and he carried his benevolence so far as 
to give his body to satisfy their hunger; which certainly was 
benevolence run mad. We find no such unmeaning benevo- 
lence in the teachings of Jesus. 
Again, in and beyond his moral teachings, Jesus asserted 
the existence of a kind, compassionate, and forgiving Heav- 
enly Father. But such a Deity has no existence in any 
other religion. Forgiveness is the peculiar attribute of the 
Deity whom <Tesus claimed to be his Father. 
Is it not exceedingly strange that this child of poor 
parents, who, it lu supposed, worked at the trade of a car- 
penter until within three years of death, should, during those 
last three years of his life, flash out meteor-like, and shed a 
moral light which threw all moral lights which preceded 
into comparative darkness ? Can we believe that such a 
clear and strong moral light was inherited from his peasant 
parents? If so, from which of his parents did he inherit 
such extraordinary moral strength? There is nothing in the 
record to show this, except that his reputed father, Joseph, 
was a just man, and that he and his wife, Mary, were careful 
to conform to the Jewish forms of worship. The record 
does not indicate that either his parents or grandparents had 
any very strong development of the moral faculties. 
It is true that in the genealogy from David through Solo- 
mon several prominent names appear ; but in none do I rec- 272 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
ognize any moral exhibitions at all comparable to those of 
their immortal descendant. 
Every observing student of human intelligence knows that 
mental tendencies are to some extent inherited, and several 
men of extraordinary intellectual and moral strength have 
appeared during the ages who probably inherited a tendency 
towards those lines of thought in which they have become 
eminent. But most of these have given a lifetime to study 
in the departments of science, literature or moral teachings, 
through which they became distinguished. But in Jesus 
we meet a man concerning whom there is no record of any 
considerable previous intellectual or moral training, who, 
near the commencement of his public life, delivered a 
speech on the side of a mountain, which, for high moral 
principles and deep insight into the inner nature of man, 
is without a parallel in any other human effort. Surely the 
production of such a man must indeed be wonderful, and 
one is inclined in all soberness to ask, Is it not as easy to 
believe the story of the unusual manner of his procreation 
as to believe that such extraordinary moral powers were 
simply inherited in such an age of moral darkness ? How- 
ever, the record asserts that Jesus claimed to be the Son 
of God, and that he taught as he was directed by his 
Father. 
Pei’haps one here may be inclined to ask whether, from a 
philosophical point of view, that last statement may not 
furnish a clue to the probable reason why the moral and 
religious light of Jesus shone with such exceeding bright- 
ness. 
The writer expects that exceptions will be taken to the 
question put in this way, and that some will see in it linger- 
ing traces of old religious beliefs and old-fashioned teach- CONCLUDING QUESTION. 
273 
ings. But it is pertinent to ask, If these former beliefs and 
teachings accord with actual truth, shall they be disregarded 
because they are now thought to be rather old-fashioned ? 
Did not the very best men who lived in those former times 
assent to these teachings ? 274 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
CHAPTER XII. 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
One reason why so many are pleased when anything is 
discovered which seems to contradict formerly accepted opin- 
ions concerning religious theories and beliefs is because of 
the spirit of the times, which cannot brook spiritual dictation, 
and because so many seem to connect in their minds the very 
idea of religion with dictation in spiritual matters. But 
such greatly err when they confound religion with certain 
doctrines which dogmatic expositors of religious doctrines 
formerly taught, and which many modern expositors would 
have men believe it is a sin to doubt. 
If such apparently irreverent ones would remember that 
the essence of religion consists in the worship of God and 
love for our fellow-men, they would see that religious feelings 
should be cultivated rather than opposed. But lam not sur- 
prised at wrong conclusions on this subject when I recollect that 
religious teachers are men, and some of them selfish too,— 
and that some, perhaps unconsciously, use religion or relig- 
ious feelings for their own advantage rather than for the good 
of their fellow-men. Such desire to impress upon the minds 
of less independent thinkers the belief that they (being the 
expositors of the will of God) should be obeyed, and that to 
act contrary to their instructions is to rebel against God. 
Thus who can wonder that when anything occurs which 
gives these dogmatic teachers a set-back it naturally pleases 
those who have observed their ill-advised assumptions ? Some, RELIGIOUS TEACHERS. 
275 
by thinking they are in the service of God, and thus are 
speaking for or in the place of God, may perhaps honestly 
come to the conclusion that, of right, they should be listened 
to and obeyed. But if those who object (and justly too) 
to such a state of things will consider that religion is one 
thing and the teachings of any man or class of men may 
be quite another thing, they will not be willing to encourage 
a spirit which naturally leads the minds of men away from 
that reverent belief and trust in the Deity which certainly is 
a source of much enjoyment to the faithful believers in God. 
But however consoling a belief in the existence of an 
All-Merciful and Overruling Providence may be, I think 
there is no doubt that there is need of being decidedly 
sceptical in regard to much which is now taught for scientific 
truth; yet some are disposed to be extremely uncharitable 
towards those who do not accept their speculative dogmas, 
however much they may praise the independent and philo- 
sophic spirit of religious sceptics. The fact that religious 
sceptics have fared badly at the hands of professed religious 
men is no excuse for scientific uncharitableness. Religious 
sceptics do not need any defence at my hands ; but in 
justice to them it may be truthfully said that they have not 
done so badly for pure religious belief as many think. On 
the contrary, on account of sceptical objections, religious 
men have been obliged to look carefully to the foundations 
of their belief, and thus they know much better what can 
be really defended as truth than they would if these objec- 
tions had never been raised. 
All have a right to ask the why concerning what they are 
requested to believe. Again, if there were no objectors, 
much of religious belief would degenerate into mere super- 
stition. If there were no sceptics, religious pretenders 276 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
would have a very wide field to work upon, and superstition, 
instead of truth, would largely prevail. When a man 
becomes afraid to doubt what a religious or scientific pre- 
tender claims to be the truth he becomes the slave of the 
pretender’s whim. When one feels that if he doubts the 
words or teachings of a religious teacher he is to be con- 
demned, he ceases to be a reasonable being, and might just 
as well be a Mohammedan or a Buddhist, as far as his per- 
sonal responsibility for his belief is concerned; for in respect 
to belief, he is not really himself, but is an offshoot, or echo, 
of the priest or the pretender. Why may he not as well 
believe in and worship Buddha as any other deity, so long 
as his personal responsibility for belief is lodged in some 
other person, while he neither understands nor comprehends 
the reasons why he should believe the doctrine taught? 
If this position is denied what barriers have we against the 
most absurd superstitions ? 
The apostolic injunction is that every one should " be able 
to give a reason for the hope that is in him.” But suppose 
that one gives as a reason for his faith something which 
does not correspond to any rational conception, what shall 
we say? Such answers are not unfrequently given, and we 
should pronounce the party who gives such reasons insane, 
provided he talked as strangely and illogically concerning 
matters of every-day life. This fact proves a stumbling- 
block to many, and they seem inclined to think that one 
belief may be as good as any other, in regard to the founda- 
tion principles of ethical doctrines. 
The question has been asked, Why, if there is a God, He 
has not revealed Himself in such a manner that no one 
can have a doubt concerning His existence, or the character 
and requirements of His laws ? Has the thought ever DOES GOD REVEAL HIMSELF ? 
277 
occurred to such inquirers, that possibly if the Deity and 
all His laws were so plainly revealed that no one could be 
able to doubt, perhaps there would be no such thing as 
moral responsibility? If evidence of such a demonstrative 
nature is presented that whether one is nailing or not lie is 
compelled to know, where is the chance for the exex’cise of 
either faith or choice ? Can there be moral responsibility 
where there is no opportunity for the exercise of choice? 
If one is compelled to believe and acknowledge just laws, 
should he have moral credit for such acknowledgment or 
obedience ? All observing persons know how readily men 
receive what they wish to believe, and how naturally they 
reject what they do not wish to believe. 
If the Deity should reveal Himself to every one, whoever 
he may be, and whatever his moral disposition is, so that he 
would be compelled to fully comprehend the origin and 
operations of all laws, and also fully understand the results 
of obedience or disobedience, would not men, under such 
circumstances, be morally mere machines? 
It may be said in reply that men now know that physically 
they are under the complete dominion of law, and yet they 
often disregard the laws of health, and hence it is evident 
that knowledge does not always cause men to act wisely, or 
lessen their responsibility. That is true ; but in regard to 
physical laws, men would act wisely if something in their 
physical organizations or in their mental operations did not 
incline them to act unwisely. So as to moral laws, doubt- 
less all would yield cheerful obedience to them if there was 
not something in the moral proclivities of men which inclines 
them to disobedience. Mere physical laws are not generally 
supposed to have any moral quality, hence their applications 
are different from those of the moral laws, and cannot be 278 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
directly applicable to the question under discussion. Per- 
sons may be reckless even when they know they are dealing 
with inexorable and irrevocable laws ; but their recklessness 
in regard to the consequences of the violation of physical 
laws cannot relieve them from the obligations of moral 
laws. 
1 repeat, what in substance I have before said, that we 
should bear in mind the fact that if it was the purpose of the 
Deity that men should enjoy moral freedom, He could not, 
in wisdom, so order His providence as to render the existence 
of moral freedom impossible. 
It is well known that M. Pasteur has done more than any 
other living man to show that all terrestrial life has been 
developed from life-germs previously existing. I have 
before remarked that the belief in the doctrine of " spon- 
taneous generation,” or that life inheres in the very composi- 
tion of matter itself, tends to create many strange views on 
the real position of man’s place in nature. The belief that 
life comes only from antecedent life tends to modify the 
views which scientists hold concerning the relations which 
men sustain towards an Intelligent Ruler of all terrestrial 
affairs. 
The speeches of M. Pasteur, the eminent physiologist, 
chemist, and scientist, and of M. Dumas, the distinguished 
chemist, were very gratifying incidents connected with a meet- 
ing (held in April, 1882) by the French Academy, of which 
the foremost literary and scientific men of France are members. 
Among others who took part in the discussion were Ernest 
Renan, the eminent sceptical writer, and 11. A. Taine, the 
materialistic philosopher. The discussion, instead of being 
purely scientific, included the consideration of the question 
of the immortality of the soul and of the existence of an Intel- PASTEUR— M. LITTRP. 
279 
ligent and Omnipotent Creator. This brought a conflict 
between faith and positivism, spiritualism and materialism, 
and raised the question whether mind or matter takes prece- 
dence ; and the whole involved ideas concerning the finite and 
infinite. 
According to the usual course of exercises at the meetings 
of the Academy, it became the duty of Pasteur, Dumas, and 
Renan to make speeches, the speech of Pasteur, according 
to custom, being a eulogy upon the life and character of M. 
Littre, to whose seat, made vacant by his death, Pasteur 
had succeeded. M. Littre was a strong materialist and 
positivist, a devoted follower of Compte, yet his belief con- 
sisted largely of negation; that is, not so much of what he 
did know as what he believed he did not know. Pas- 
teur’s arguments are worthy of the widest circulation, and 
I will now quote certain extracts from his speech as published 
in the " Edinburgh Review ” of July, 1882. 
He says of M. Littre, who was an admirer of Compte : 
" The fundamental principle of Auguste Compte is to set 
aside all metaphysical inquiry into first and final causes, to 
reduce all ideas and all theories to fact, and to restrict the 
character of certainty to experimental demonstrations. His 
system includes a classification of the sciences, and a pre- 
tended law of history expressed by the assertion that the 
conceptions of the human mind pass successively through 
three states, the theological, the metaphysical, and the 
scientific or positive.” 
The reporter further continues : 
" M. Littre found a certain repose of mind in the absolute 
denial by the positivists of all metaphysical truth. He was, 
in fact, what is now called an agnostic. Without denying 
the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, he 280 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
dismissed them from his thoughts as subjects incapable of 
scientific demonstration.” 
To this M. Pasteur replies : 
" As for myself, holding that the words ' progress ’ and 
' invention’ are synonymous, I ask by what new philosophical 
or scientific discovery the soul of man can be torn from these 
lofty themes? They seem to me to be eternal, because the 
mystery that infolds the universe, from which they emanate, 
is itself eternal. 
"Beyond this starry firmament, what is there? More 
skies and stars. And beyond these? The human mind, 
impelled by an irresistible power, will never cease to ask 
itself, what lies beyond? Time and space arrest it not. 
At thA farthest point attained is a finite boundarjr, enlarged 
from what preceded it; no sooner is it reached than the im- 
placable question returns, returns forever in the curiosity of 
man. It is vain to speak of space, of time, of size unlimited. 
Those words pass the human understanding. But he who 
proclaims the existence of the infinite and no man can 
escape from it comprehends in that assertion more of the 
supernatural than there is in all the miracles of all religions ; 
for the conception of the infinite has the twofold characters 
that it is irresistible and incomprehensible. We prostrate 
ourselves before the thought, which masters all the faculties 
of the understanding, and threatens the springs of intellectual 
life, like the sublime madness of Pascal. Yet this positive 
and primordial conception is gratuitously set aside by posi- 
tivism, with all its consequences on the life of human 
society. 
" The conception of the infinite in creation is every where 
irresistibly manifest. It places the supernatural in every 
human heart. The idea of God is a form of the idea of the DUMAS AND PASTEUR. 
281 
infinite. As long as the mystery of the infinite weighs upon 
the mind of man, temples will be raised to it, be the object 
of adoration Brahma, Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus. Meta- 
physics are but the study of this commanding notion of the 
infinite.” 
Pasteur took strong ground in favor of a belief in the 
Deity as an Omnipotent Creator, and also in the immor- 
tality of the soul. He was answered by Ernest Renan in 
an eloquent speech, which, however, was considered a 
failure in so far as it was an attempt to answer the state- 
ments of Pasteur. 
Dumas stated most pointedly and positively that there 
was something connected with a man’s existence which could 
not be accounted for by chemistry. 
M. Dumas’ reported statements are as follows : 
" The physician and naturalist may teach what is physical 
in man; that his nerves are sometimes instruments of pain, 
and that his body is but dust. That is their business. But 
philosophy and eloquence should cast their mantle of 
purple and gold over the baser aspects of life. It is their 
business to strengthen the heart of man and raise his soul 
to immortality.” 
" But the discoveries of science in our own age prove that 
none but the ignorant can suppose that the whole book of 
wisdom has been revealed to us. The source of life and 
its essence are unknown to us. We have not seized that 
mysterious link which connects the body with the mind, and 
constitutes the unity of individual man. We have no right 
to treat man as an abstract being, to disdain his history, or 
to attribute to science an influence over the direction of 
the moral axis of the world which its progress does not 
justify. We have, it is true, conquered the earth, measured 282 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
the track of the planets, calculated the mechanism of the 
heavens, analyzed the stars, resolved the nebulae, and 
followed the eccentric course of comets ; but beyond those 
stars, whose light is centuries in reaching us, there are 
other orbs whose rays are lost in space; and farther, farther 
still beyond all limits and all computation, are suns which 
we shall not behold, and innumerable worlds hidden from 
our eyes. After two thousand years of effort, if we reach 
the utmost extremity of the universe, which is but a point 
in the immensity of space, we are arrested on the threshold 
of the infinite, of which we know nothing. ' The nature 
of man, his present and future existence, are mysteries 
impenetrable to the greatest genius, as well as to the rest 
of mankind,’ said D’Alembert, at the height of his fame. 
' What we know is but little,’ said Laplace on his death-bed. 
Those were the last words of the illustrious rival of Newton. 
Let them also be mine.” 
The " Edinburg Review ” remarks upon the above as 
follows : 
"These are, in other words, the sentiments expressed by 
M. Dumas and M. Pasteur. And who are they who hold 
this language? The one is a chemist, conversant with all 
the known properties of natural bodies and the marvellous 
combinations of the atomic theory which reduces them all 
to a few primitive elements. The other is a physiologist 
who has refuted the theory of "spontaneous generation,” 
and established on a solid basis that life alone can impart 
life. They have both travelled as far on the road of natural 
science as it will take them ; they have even enlarged the 
bounds of physical knowledge. But, arrived at that term 
of man’s labor, they acknowledge that an infinite horizon 
of thought, of action, of forces, and of power lies beyond MIRACLE OE LIFE. 
283 
the scope of sensuous observation. He studies nature with 
a careless eye and a benighted mind who does not perceive 
that the supernatural lies in it and above it. For when all 
is said that science can teach, and all is done that skill can 
achieve to cultivate the earth and bring forth its fruits, one 
gift remains without which everything else were vain that 
gift which the Supreme Creator has reserved absolutely to 
Himself that gift which man and every living creature can 
take away, but can never restore that gift without which 
this earth would be no more than the cinder of a planet 
the mystery and the miracle of LIFE. Life is everywhere; 
without life nothing would exist at all; matter would be the 
caput mortuum of the universe. With the diffusion of life 
creation begins; and of that act all but a supernatural 
power is incapable.” 
Speeches like those of Pasteur and Dumas seem like a 
new departure, in an institution like the French Academy, 
but straws show which way the current is setting, and to 
my mind the reception these speeches had indicates that the 
materialistic current, which refers the origin of all things 
to unconscious, unthinking, and purposeless destiny, has 
reached its limit, and that there are indications of a chang-e 
7 O 
towards more reverent and reasonable views. 
Although Pasteur eulogized Littre’s character, and his 
faithfulness to what he believed to be true, he was obliged 
to disagree decidedly in the matter of belief with the man 
he eulogized. Pasteur is a firm believer in the existence of 
the Deity, and also of the immortal existence of the human 
soul. M. Littre did not absolutely deny that an Omnipo- 
tent Creator exists, but he denied that we can have any 
definite knowledge or evidence that such a Being exists ; and 
hence followed a disbelief in the immortality of the human 284 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
soul. Hence he denied that we can have any direct evidence 
of the existence of a soul or mind separate from man’s 
physical organization. 
This striking peculiarity of belief appears in the writings 
of almost every one who rejects the idea of the existence of 
a soul separate from the body. Most of these do not at- 
tempt to show that such a thing cannot exist, but simply to 
say that we cannot, from scientific demonstrations, prove that 
a soul does exist. This position is entirely negative, and 
does not in the least help to explain how the invisible power 
that exists in every living man comes to be in him. It is 
true that we have never seen any manifestation of life or 
intelligence unless it was connected with a material sub- 
stance ; but the fact that spiritual existence (or souls, if 
such exist) cannot make its influence felt by men except 
through physical or material organisms by no means shows 
that it cannot exist in a separate state. This last state- 
ment materialists must admit to be true. It is also true that 
the power of manifesting intelligence increases and decreases 
with the growth and decay of the physical organs. In the 
infant, intelligence seems feeble, and also in extreme old 
age, when we speak of the aged as losing their faculties. 
It appears to me that, in the case of the aged, this is simply 
a loss of power in the brain and nervous system, the 
physical organs through which intelligence is manifested to 
other parties. Pressure on the brain may destroy all con- 
sciousness, and with that all power of manifesting intelli- 
gence ; but a removal of that pressure may at once bring 
back to the brain and nervous system the power of intelli- 
gent manifestations, and with it memory of occurrences long 
past. The power of intelligence must have existed either in 
or out of the man during the time when no manifestations INTELLIGENCE. 
285 
of intelligence could be manifested, as is proved by the im- 
mediate return to memory of occurrences which took place 
long ago, on the removal of the pressure. 
The point I now make is this ; The fact that the mind can 
make no manifestations of its existence while a certain 
pressure is on the brain does not show that the mind is 
not still in existence; for, as soon as the pressure is relieved, 
memory returns. Then, if mind exists somewhere during the 
life of the individual while it cannot be manifested, what 
right have we to deny that it can exist in other states where 
it can make no manifestations which we can see? 
What right have we to say that the functions of the 
mind can be suspended for a time, and again resumed, and 
acknowledge that this invisible power still existed during 
its suspension, and yet deny that it may exist under other 
circumstances when we cannot see its manifestations ? 
If we deny that intelligence can exist when we cannot see 
it, or if we assume that the soul cannot exist because we 
cannot see it, carry this denial to its legitimate conclusion, 
and deny the existence of intelligence in the living man when 
we cannot discover indications of either life or intelligence. 
If the intelligent principle while temporarily inactive does not 
exist in the man while he is in a state of unconsciousness, 
where does it exist during this time? —lt certainly cannot 
have been dead and brought to life again. 
o o 
Take for instance the case of a person apparently drowned, 
who remains unconscious for an hour or more. After being 
restored to consciousness he has a perfect recollection of every 
circumstance up to the time of his loss of consciousness, 
and then for an hour or more there is a perfect blank, and 
he can remember nothing which occurred during that inter- 
val of time ; but, on regaining his faculties and returning to 286 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS. AND INQUIRIES. 
his normal condition, memory and every other quality of 
intelligence return, and become as clear and strong as ever. 
Where was the mind during his state of unconsciousness ? 
Did it still exist in the body, or was it out of the body? Its 
principles must have existed somewhere, or else a new crea- 
tion is necessitated to bring back a return of memory and 
the other intellectual attributes. 
Again, take a person in a profound sleep. He may be 
perfectly unconscious of everything around him, but is the 
action of the mind suspended or dormant while he is in this 
condition? Dreams show that the mind itself may be still 
active, while to all outward appearance the man has no con- 
sciousness. Through the condition of sleep his mental con- 
nection with the outer world seems completely severed; but 
the mind itself may not be even sleeping, as its activity in 
dreams abundantly indicates. This shows that there is a per- 
fectly active mental condition when no man can see any mani- 
festations of mind. 
Who can look at the mass of humanity, and see its individu- 
ality of character, and behold one man, from youth to old 
age, in mental and moral respects different from every other 
man, and not see that there is a kind of personal identity in 
his actuality, which we call character, that cannot be 
accounted for by any mere physical causes? Physiologists 
may dissect as carefully as possible, and find no material 
difference in the quality of the brain, heart, and muscles ; 
but distinct and definite characteristics cleave to the man 
from youth to old age which neither chemistry nor any 
other physical cause can account for. When one dies a 
distinct individuality is stamped out. Of what does this 
individuality consist? Explain it, if you can, by merely 
physical science. What trace of character can you find by INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER. 
287 
dissection, except in the shape or quality of the brain, which 
an invisible entity has taken as its organ of communication 
with the outer world ? What is this something which we 
call mind, or intelligence ? What makes the different moral 
characters and dispositions which are distinguishing charac- 
teristics of various individuals of society ? 
Who can tell what makes one man’s disposition, thoughts, 
and desires so different from those of every other man? 
Explain this if you can without acknowledging in him the 
existence of an invisible and intelligent force entirely distinct 
from the like force which exists in any other individual of 
the human race. 
Many believe this force to be a soul, or something insepa- 
rably connected with a soul. Those who deny the existence 
of a soul leave us in the dark concerning these distinguishing 
qualities in human character. 288 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
CHAPTER XIII. 
SOUL AND MIND. 
The principle of Atavism must be admitted to exercise a 
very strong influence upon particular men, and even races of 
men. How often we see a very marked trait developed in a 
man when you can scarcely find a semblance of that trait in 
father, mother, grandfather, or grandmother, but by looking 
back several generations you will find the trait strongly de- 
veloped in some ancestor, and it has jumped over several 
generations, and now all at once it crops out in a very 
marked manner. 
We all know the tendency of various diseases to descend 
from father or mother to son or daughter, as, for instance, 
scrofula or consumption, or in mental tendency to insanity, 
and in fact to many other peculiarities. The sins of the 
parents are " visited upon the children to the third and 
fourth generation,” and we might even say to the tenth 
generation. 
All know that there is an invisible and distinguishing 
something pertaining to every individual man, and the ques- 
tion is, how this came to be in him. To say that it is 
inherited does not in the least inform us how these invisible 
and peculiar kinds of forces came to be originally implanted 
in man. 
We may deny the existence of that which we cannot see ; 
but it may be as reasonable for a blind man to deny that 
light exists because he never beheld it, as it is for man to CAUSE OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. 
289 
deny the existence of an intelligent cause of human intelli- 
gence and human individuality. Intelligence is not a myth, 
neither can the cause of intelligence be other than a reality. 
Our denials of this will not in the least change actual facts 
which pertain to human existence, or alter the mysterious 
connection which exists between the invisible entity which we 
call mind or intelligence, and our physical organization. To 
me it seems to be folly to assert the positive non-existence of 
an entity like the soul because its existence cannot be demon- 
strated by physical science, when in actual fact the matter 
under consideration is beyond and entirely outside the do- 
mains of the physical sciences. To claim as some do that 
all of the acts of the mind or the soul are properly under 
physical laws is begging the whole question ; for the physi- 
cist must first show that the soul (if it exists) is composed 
of a material substance in order to bring it under physical 
laws. 
We are told that the idea of an immaterial essence is un- 
thinkable ; and some go even farther, and assert that what 
is unthinkable is also impossible. This is a mere assertion, 
and I deny its truth, and on this point my assertion is a 
positive one ; while the evidence upon which the other asser- 
tion rests is entirely of a negative character. 
What is unthinkable to one may not be so to another of 
a different grade or order of intelligence. It would be the 
highest folly and self-conceit for a near or short sighted 
man to assume that a certain object could not exist because 
it is not manifest to his vision, when a far-seeing man could 
readily see the object. I think there is as real a difference 
in the range of the intellectual vision in different men as 
there is in the power of their physical vision; and the reason 
why some are so confident that certain invisible essences or 290 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES 
entities or powers cannot exist is probably because of some 
peculiarity of their mental or moral vision. 
Of unthinkable things, take, for instance, certain matters 
pertaining to space. We cannot comprehend the idea of 
space being limited; for, if we attempt to do this, we must 
think of what is beyond this limit. Neither can we compre- 
hend the idea of unlimited space. But space exists, and it 
must be either with or without limit, notwithstanding, in 
either case, the idea of placing any definite limit is unthink- 
able. Time, also, must either have had a beginning, or it did 
not have one. But how there could be such a thing as a 
beginning of time is incomprehensible ; and yet we cannot 
comprehend its opposite, viz., that time can be without a 
beginning. Is there, therefore, no such thing as time? 
If it is answered that time is necessarily limited, it being 
only a part of eternal duration, and hence must have a begin- 
ning and end, this answer gives merely a verbal turn; for 
it gives no idea of the length of time’s duration or of how 
it merges into eternity. But if one will still insist upon this 
difference between the words time and eternity, then let us 
shift the word, and use eternity instead of the word time, 
and ask whether we can conceive of a beginning or end of 
eternity. Is there then no eternity? 
We cannot prove our personal identities ; yet what sane 
man doubts his personal identity? Notwithstanding all the 
sophistries used in attempting to show that we do not know 
that we are the same individuals we were ten years since, 
our consciousness, with memory added, tells us that we are 
the same; and these testimonials concerning our personal 
identities are stronger than a thousand scientific sophisms. 
Upon this point Dr. Reid (as quoted by Jackson, p. 184) 
writes as follows : PERSONALITY. 
291 
" All men agree that personality is indivisible; a part of a 
person is an absurdity. A man who loses his estate, his health, 
an arm, or a leg, continues still to be the same person. 
My personal identity, therefore, is the continued existence 
of that indivisible thing which I call myself. I am not 
thought, I am not action, I am not feeling ; but I think and 
act and feel. Thoughts, actions, feelings change every 
moment; but self ,to which they belong, is permanent. If 
it be asked how I know that it is permanent, the answer is, 
that I know it from memory. Everything I remember to 
have seen, or heard, or done, or suffered, convinces me that I 
existed at the time remembered. 
" But though it is from memory that I have the knowl- 
edge of my personal identity, yet personal identity must 
exist in nature, independent of memory, otherwise I should 
only be the same person as far as my memory serves me; 
and what would become of my existence during the inter- 
vals wherein my memory has failed me ? My remem- 
brance of any of my actions does not make me to be the 
person who did the action, but only makes me know that I 
was the person who did it.” 
It is well to have enough of scepticism in our mental 
constitutions to prevent being imposed upon by superstitious 
fears; but universal doubt must result in gigantic evil. 
David Hume writes concerning Pyrrhonism, or universal 
doubt, as follows (" Essays,” p. 381) : "A PYRRHONIAN 
cannot expect that his philosophy will have any constant 
influence on the mind: or, if it had, that its influence would 
be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowl- 
edge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life 
must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to 
prevail. All discourse, all action, would immediately cease ; 292 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
and men remain in total lethargy, till the necessities of 
nature unsatisfied put an end to their miserable exist- 
ence.” 
Yet the same Hume, when under another state of feelings, 
writes as follows ( I quote at second hand) : " The intense 
view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections in 
human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my 
brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, 
and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or 
likely than another. Where am I, or what? From what 
causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall 
I return? Whose favor shall I court, and whose anger 
must I dread ? What beings surround me ? And on whom 
have I any influence, or who have any influence on me? I 
am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy 
myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, envi- 
roned with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the 
use of every member and faculty. 
"Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is inca- 
pable of dispelling these clouds, Nature herself suffices to 
that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy 
and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by 
some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which 
obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, 1 play a game of 
back-gammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends ; 
and when, after three or four hours’ amusement, I would 
return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and 
strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to 
enter into them any farther.” 
It seems to me that men may as well attempt to prove 
that they are their own grandfathers as attempt to show that 
many of the current negations concerning our personal THE SOUL. 
293 
identities are true, or that the assumption that our physical 
systems constitute the most important element of ourselves 
is founded in reason. 
If it is conceded that the soul consists of a material sub- 
stance, then it may be entirely subject to physical laws. 
But that is just what is not conceded; and until this part 
of the question is agreed upon there cannot be commonly 
conceded foundation truths from wThich to proceed in our 
discussions. 
The question has been asked, if the mind "is composed 
of highly refined or etherized matter, at what stage of this 
refinement does it become so refined as to be able to think ? ” 
To say that there may be realities which are immaterial is 
by no means a contradiction ; for instance, a shadow. We 
may be answered that a shadow is not an entity, but is the 
mere absence of light. However this may be, the shade of 
a tree is an agreeable and pleasant reality in a hot day, as 
many a weary traveller on a hot and dusty road can testify. 
There is certainly a sweet and refreshing potentiality in this 
absence of light, and hence, negatively, a sort of recuper- 
ative force. It may be answered that the shadow is in itself 
absolutely nothing, and hence cannot be a force; that this 
refreshing potency is simply the result of arresting the ener- 
vating action of too much sunlight; but the fact still remains 
that without the absence of these rays of the sun through 
their interception (from which the shade is inseparable) 
this refreshing power could not exist. Or, in other words, 
this refreshing force or power being inseparable from the 
shade (dispute about it as we may), the shade still remains 
a reality appreciable by our senses. It has shape and out- 
lines, which are distinguishing characteristics of reality. 
We hope, however, that the reader will not understand this 294 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
to be a practical confession of our belief that the soul may 
be a mere shadow or shade. 
There may be other immaterial realities, for all we know, 
which are not appreciable by or through our senses, and 
it is neither wise nor philosophical to assert that this cannot 
be so. Thus arises the question, what things may be im- 
material, and yet realities —as a thought or sensation, 
for instance. 
Scientific men generally believe that thought is accom- 
panied by molecular action of the brain ; in fact, some assert 
that thought is caused by the action of matter under unalter- 
able laws. Please observe, however, that there is a vast 
difference between saying that thought is accompanied by 
the action of matter and saying that thought consists of the 
action of matter. We may concede that molecular action 
of the brain may accompany thought, but not that thought 
consists of such action. 
If thought is produced by the action of matter alone, 
guided by natural laws, then the same mental result should 
always be produced by the same material causes when all 
the conditions are the same. But does the same force or 
agency applied to our minds always produce the same result, 
even when the conditions, so far as we can see, are the 
same ? 
One man hears a statement of a fact, and receives it as 
such, and another, sitting by his side, rejects it, not believing 
it to be a fact. Both have the same evidence, given in the 
same way; but the results produced are exactly opposite. 
Why should the same fact cause one to love and rejoice, and 
another sorrow or hate ? Are there opposite material forces 
of nature struggling in the brains of different persons? Or 
have they immaterial principles, viz., souls that are possessed DIFFERENT MORAL STATES. 
295 
of different moral states, with affections running in opposite 
directions, which cause these directly opposite results? 
Which looks most reasonable? 
Dr. Maudsley says (p. 152), speaking of different beliefs : 
"Our beliefs, sane or insane, are not the results of reason, 
but have their roots in that unconscious part of our nature 
of the state of which the feelings are the indices.” 
It is exactly this unconscious part of our nature that we 
need information about. The conscious parts of our natures 
may be observed and reasoned about. But what is this 
" unconscious part of our nature ” ? May it not be the soul 
itself which originates or modifies our mental and moral 
tastes, habits of thought, likes and dislikes? And, per 
contra, may not voluntary acts tend to modify the moral 
state of the soul? 
The question whether men are responsible for the moral 
state of the " unconscious part of their natures ” forces itself 
upon us. Why do certain men naturally tend towards one 
kind of moral or immoral actions, and others naturally tend 
towards other and opposite kinds of actions ? Can a man 
mould or modify this " unconscious part ”of his nature ? If 
not, why the feeling of guilt when we are inclined to do what 
we know to be wrong? I think that our voluntary acts do 
modify the condition of this unconscious part, as surely as 
indulgence in the use of intoxicating liquors will modify the 
digestive organs, which also do their work unconsciously. 
There seems to be a reflex action in both cases. The dis- 
ordered stomach often craves intoxicants, and in turn these 
intoxicants tend to increase abnormal cravings. Indulgence 
in certain lines of thought tends to create a mental passion 
running in the same direction. 
Here comes before us the actual fact of voluntary thought. 296 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIEIES. 
Why can a man generally think of any subject if he chooses 
to do so? Why the consciousness of a free will, if all the 
acts of the will are necessitated by a power outside of the 
mind, and by the laws that govern matter? Is not the very 
consciousness of freedom of choice to be taken into account 
when we make up our verdict? Does not reason itself 
depend largely on our consciousness for its basis? What 
man can say that he is sane, or that he can reason correctly, 
except that his reason and consciousness act harmoniously 
together? It is the merest delusion to say that reasoning 
can be sound which ignores facts of consciousness. 
But, again, why has a man a conscience? And why a 
feeling of moral obligation? Can we throw these out of 
account when we make up our verdict in regard to our 
thoughts, consciousness, and physical organization and their 
dependence on or independence of each other ? What kind 
of mere matter can cause a sense of right and wrong? It is 
useless to assume that all moral feeling comes from educa- 
tion, for if it does all who are educated precisely alike will 
have the same moral feelings. In our practical dealings, we 
know better than to be deceived by any such fallacy. 
While we admit that mind cannot make manifestations of 
its existence that men can perceive, except through the action 
of the brain and nervous system, we do not believe that any 
material substance can be equivalent to a thought, or to the 
mind. Mind and the soul seem to be spiritual; and the life 
and the soul in man may be inseparable ; and if we consider 
life to be more than a mere process, or condition of matter, 
both may be as actually immaterial as a thought or a desire. 
Why should any one suppose that the mind, which is the 
parent of the thought, consists of a material substance any 
more than its children, the thoughts? ABSTRACT REALITIES. 
297 
As an actual fact we neither know what the real nature or 
essence of either mind or matter is ; and, in one sense, it does 
not matter whether the mind or the soul is highly etherized 
matter or is actually immaterial; and I do not believe it 
can be demonstrated whether it is the one or the other, or 
whether it is either. Some hold to the opinion that it is 
highly important to show that the soul is immaterial, because 
they fear that unless this can be shown one great foundation 
principle on which the doctrine of the soul’s immortality rests 
is in danger of being undermined. But Ido not share in this 
fear. 
We can conceive abstract realities which are not material, 
as justice, equity, and truth. These may be called qualities 
rather than entities, though we speak of justice, etc., with a 
fair appreciation of what truth, justice, etc., are. There is 
no lack of power to conceive of immateriality, as space, for 
instance, which, for all that we know, may exist as an abso- 
lute void, notwithstanding the statement that such an idea is 
unthinkable. As before mentioned the ground taken by 
some that what is unthinkable or inconceivable cannot be 
true is simply an assumption ; for, as we have before stated, 
it is incomprehensible how space can exist without limits, 
and it is also unthinkable that space can have any limits. 
But space does exist, either with or without limits, and I 
suppose it must be without limits. 
Some have asserted that the very existence of space must 
have succeeded motion, which is simply another assumption. 
By space I mean simply " room,” or " extension, considered 
independently of anything which it may contain; ” and this 
extension may be an absolute void. Space, in this sense, 
eternally existed, and never was created, nor can it ever be 
annihilated. Thus, from its very nature, space must be 298 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
eternal in the future as well as in the past. Empty space 
certainly cannot be material. 
Justice, equity, space, etc., are not entities in a sense 
equivalent to or like what are called imponderable agents in 
nature, as electricity, for instance ; for we do not deny that 
electricity may be a material substance. But who can tell 
the composition of electricity, or weigh it? Yet it is a mighty 
power, and it can be tasted, which fact would seem to indicate 
that it may be material. 
But who can weigh or feel a thought through any of the 
senses ? Does any one claim that thought is a material 
substance ? 
Who can weigh that invisible power which underlies sound ? 
That invisible energy which causes vibrations in the atmos- 
phere which we call sound will shake mighty structures when 
the right tone is struck, and that out of all proportion to the 
apparent power which causes that tone. 
As an illustration of this invisible power, take the atmos- 
pheric vibrations caused by the small animal called the howl- 
ing monkey. He often makes a noise which can be heard two 
or three miles, causing cubic miles of the atmosphere (which 
weigh millions of tons) to sensibly vibrate. He forces the 
air through a small aperture in the roots of his tongue, and 
the cavity not larger than an English walnut between 
his lower jaw and under his tongue is the place where all 
these intense vibrations originate. 
So the vibrations of a string which weighs less than a 
O O 
quarter of an ounce (if what is called the tone of the arch 
is struck) will cause an arch which weighs many tons to 
shake so that the vibrations can be detected by the sense of 
touch. A very small mechanical power originates these 
vibrations. But how does such an immense apparent in- SOUND 
299 
crease of power arise from such apparently insignificant 
original mechanical powers? 
Certain musical sounds cause particles of dust or sand to 
range themselves in regular mathematical figures on a plate 
of glass. The same sounds or vibrations move inanimate 
matter, and also ravish the ear and the very soul with their 
melodies. 
It is true that the air which vibrates is a material sub- 
stance ; but the air is not that original invisible power which 
causes these powerful vibrations which make sound percep- 
tible through our sense of hearing. 
o O 
Some have quibbled over the meaning of the word sound, 
and used it in a sense so restricted that there can be no sound 
unless there be ears to perceive the vibrations which cause 
sound. But I have used the word sound according to the 
second definition of Webster, viz., "The impulse or vibra- 
tion which would occasion sound to a percipient if present 
with unimpaired organs ; ” and, when used in this sense, 
with the same propriety it might be asserted that there can 
be no light unless there are eyes to see it, as to say that 
there can be no sound unless there are ears to hear. What 
school-boy does not know that the fact that a blind man 
cannot see nor a deaf man hear in nowise alters the fact of 
the existence of light or the existence of a powmr which 
underlies conditions which produce what we call sound ? An 
invisible and indescribable power seems to underlie the cause 
of sound-waves. What is this energy or power? This 
power seems to correspond to the " nournenon ” of Kant, 
while sound appears to be the " phenomenon ; ” but is this 
"nournenon,” or underlying force a material substance? 
Memory, what is it? How wonderful ! How are the 
records of passing events stamped into the mind ? What an 300 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
intertwined and intertwisted network of impressions must 
be on the brain, if all our hopes, fears, loves, hatreds, joys, 
and sorrows are material substances ! When a scene not 
thought of for twenty years before " rushes on the recollec- 
tion,” what a clearing off of the tracks of other materials 
must there be, if thoughts and memories are material sub- 
stances ! Yet there are those who contend that for every 
fact stored in the mind an infinitesimally small cell exists, rep- 
resenting that fact, in the gray matter of the brain, and that 
only a limited number of these cells can be accommodated in 
the brain of any man. Thus when some new fact is acquired 
and treasured some old fact must be crowded out to make 
place for the new fact, provided the spaces in the brain 
allotted to storing facts are previously full. This is quite 
similar to the position assumed by Bain. 
To further explain I will quote from Bain, " Mind and 
Body,” extracts from pp. 91, 93, 94. 
"For every act of memory, every exercise of bodily apti- 
tude, every habit, recollection, train of ideas, there is a 
specific grouping, or coordination, of sensations and move- 
ments, by virtue of specific growths in the cell junctions.” 
"In the next place, Acquisition has a limit, determined by 
the amount of the nervous substance, that is, the size of the 
brain. 
"We are apt to be carried away with a vague notion 
that there is no limit to acquirement, except our defect of 
application or some other curable weakness of our own. There 
are, however, very manifest limits. We are all blockheads in 
something; some of us fail in mechanical aptitude, some in 
music, some in languages, some in science. Memory, in 
one of these lines of incapacity, is a rope of sand ; there must 
be in each case a deficiency of cerebral substance for that ACQUISITIONS. 
301 
class of connections. Then again there is a tendency in 
acquisitions to decay unless renewed. Hence a time must 
come in the progress of acquisition when the whole available 
force of growth is needed in order to conserve what we have 
already got; when, in fact, we are losing at one end as 
much as we gain at the other. 
"It is further to be remarked that much of our mental 
improvement in later life is the substitution of a better class 
of judgments for our first immature notions, these last being 
gradually dropped. There is not necessarily more room occu- 
pied in the brain by a good opinion than by a bad, when once 
the good opinion is arrived at.” 
In regard to recollection, or the recalling of events long 
past, he says, p. 89: "It must be considered as almost 
beyond a doubt that ' the renewed feeling occupies the 
very same parts, and in the same manner as the original 
feelingand no other parts, nor in any other manner that 
can be assigned.” 
Hence, under this theory of new cell-growths for every 
new fact acquired, a very rapid growth or increase of these 
material cells, when one is rapidly learning new facts, is 
necessitated. But it needs further evidence than I have yet 
seen to convince me that this is the way in which our memo- 
ries are stored. The fact that the gray matter of the brain is 
largely composed of very minute cells cannot be denied ; but 
whether these cells represent acquired facts is a question. 
But to make a fair and reasonable presentation of Bain’s 
theories of memory I shall quote further from his " Mind 
and Body ” certain ingenious calculations in regard to ner- 
vous elements, etc. This is worthy of attention, because it is, 
perhaps, as concise and clear a statement of the materialistic 
view of memory as has been made : 302 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
" Let us make a rough estimate of the nervous elements, 
fibres and corpuscles, —with a view to compare the number 
of these with the number of our acquisitions. 
" The thin cake of gray substance surrounding the hemi- 
spheres of the brain, and extended into many doublings by 
the furrowed or convoluted structure, is somewhat difficult 
to measure. It has been estimated at upwards of three 
hundred square inches, or as nearly equal to a square surface 
of eighteen inches in the side. Its thickness is variable, but, 
on an average, it may be stated at one-tenth of an inch. It 
is the largest accumulation of gray matter in the body. It is 
made up of several layers of gray substance divided by lay- 
ers of white substance. The gray substance is a nearly com- 
pact mass of corpuscles, of variable size. The large caudate 
nerve-cells are mingled with very small corpuscles, less 
than the thousandth of an inch in diameter. Allowing for 
intervals, we may suppose that a linear row of five hundred 
cells occupies an inch; thus giving a quarter of a million to 
the square inch, for three hundred inches. If one-half of the 
thickness of the layer is made up of fibres, the coi'puscles or 
cells, taken by themselves, would be a mass one-twentieth of an 
inch thick, say sixteen cells in the depth. Multiplying these 
numbers together, we should reach a total of twelve hundred 
millions of cells in the gray covering of the hemispheres. 
As every cell is united with at least two fibres, often many 
more, we may multiply this number by four, for the number 
of connecting fibres attached to the mass ; which gives four 
thousand eight hundred millions of fibres. Assume the re- 
spective numbers to be (corpuscles) one thousand, and 
(fibres) five thousand, millions, and make the comparison 
with our acquisitions as follows : 
" With a total of fifty thousand Acquisitions, evenly spread ACQUISITIONS. 
303 
over the whole of the hemispheres, there would be for each 
nervous grouping at the rate of twenty thousand cells and 
one hundred thousand fibres. 
" With a total of two hundred thousand Acquisitions of the 
assumed types, which would certainly include the most re- 
tentive and most richly endowed minds, there would be for 
each nervous grouping five thousand cells and twenty-five 
thousand fibres.” 
But suppose there are material cell-growths in the brain 
corresponding to all acts to be remembered (as Bain sup- 
poses), it by no means follows that the mind, or the memo- 
ries stored in these cells, is also material. The mind itself 
is connected in some way with the brain ; but the mind is 
one thing, and the brain, the organ of the mind, is quite 
another thing'. 
O 
We say of one man that he thinks quickly, and of another 
that he thinks slowly. Now if thought consists of action 
which is similar to the action of electricity, then as different 
substances transmit electricity with greatly different veloci- 
ties, so the sensations of different men may travel with differ- 
ent velocities, according to the fineness of their nervous 
structures. 
This principle probably goes through the mental constitu- 
tions. For instance, if two men at the same instant should 
see the flash of a gun which was aimed at them, one might 
think quick enough to drop out of danger before the shot 
arrived, while another, whose nervous conductors were 
of coarser make, might not think quick enough to get out 
of danger. 
It is well known that electricity moves with vastly differ- 
ent velocities according to the media through or by which 
it is transmitted. It is also stated that electricity moves ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
upon the nerves of men with just the same velocities as 
nervous sensations do. This may be from sixty to one 
hundred feet per second. Thus the velocity with which 
sensations travel must be somewhat dependent. upon the 
quality, structure, or texture of the nerves, and thus it 
would travel with much greater velocity in one man than in 
another who possesses a different quality of nerves. 
If you strike the feet of two men at the same instant, one 
might be conscious of the blow, and move within two-thirds 
the amount of time it would take the other to be conscious 
of it. 
Also, people remark upon the different sizes, qualities, 
and characters of brains and bodies which different men in- 
herit. But why wonder at this ? In the brains and bodies 
of children from the same parents there may be, both in 
size and quality, a difference similar to that found in differ- 
ent apples from the same tree. Both the bodies and the 
brains of children descend from the parents in a manner 
quite similar to that of apples from the parent tree, and 
they are produced under the action of natural laws quite 
similar in their operations. Some apples are sound and 
others not sound; some are small and others large; some 
are healthy and others unhealthy. So the brains and bodies 
of some children are large, others small; some healthy, 
others diseased; some strong, others weak; some active, 
others inactive ; and this constitutes no anomaly in nature. 
But in youth, as well as in men, the will, the intentions, 
and voluntary habits so operate as to vary to some extent 
these analogies. 
Thus, in regard to the performance of moral duties, we say 
generally that men are morally responsible for making or not 
making the best possible use of both their inherited and ac- DIFFERENCES IN INDIVIDUALS. 
305 
quired abilities, and also for capacities which they have had 
opportunities of acquiring. But no two living beings are in 
all respects just alike either mentally or physically. No two 
men look just alike, and the qualities of their physical sys- 
tems are never just alike, to say nothing of the difference in 
their mental constitutions. Even the waste matter that each 
person loses through the pores of the physical system in the 
process of living is different in each and every individual. 
This is so different in each person that a dog can tell the dif- 
ference between the waste matter which is thrown off by his 
master and that thrown off by any other person; other- 
wise the dog could not, by the scent, distinguish his master’s 
track from that of any other individual. The same rule ap- 
plies to the waste thrown off by birds and different animals. 
A dog trained to hunt partridges or quail does not mistake 
the scent of a rabbit or other animal for that of the quail. 
All odors which strike the olfactory nerves are believed to be 
composed of particles of matter; and every flower which 
scatters its aroma is constantly wasting particles which com- 
pose its substance. 
Thus many things which generally pass for immaterial 
substances, as odors, for instance, are supposed to be material. 
But this by no means shows or even indicates that the soul, 
or that indescribable something which makes every man dif- 
ferent from every other man, is not ethereal, or spiritual. 
In view of the preceding thoughts we now come to the 
consideration of our concluding speculations concerning moral 
responsibilities, which are believed to be incumbent upon every 
rational man. 
All must see that the moral responsibilities of men must 
to some degree be dependent upon the position they hold in 
respect to moral freedom, or the freedom to choose or refuse 306 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
to perform acts which have either a moral or immoral quality. 
If both mind and matter are subject to the natural laws in 
the same way, and to such an extent that they must be as 
they are, and cannot be in any other way, then this subjec- 
tion will go far towards breaking down or destroying our 
general ideas concerning the different qualities of acts which 
are termed moral and immoral. 
But before inquiring into this idea of the actual necessity 
of moral evil, or its opposite, let us consider some facts 
which may be familiar to us from our daily observation, and 
ask, what renders a man’s act one of moral responsibility? 
For there may be a vast difference in the extent of moral 
dignity or turpitude of similar acts according to the circum- 
stances influencing one in the commission of various acts. 
The same temptation to do wrong may be great to one and 
very slight to another. It will be the stronger just in pro- 
portion to one’s liking for the forbidden act or his indiffer- 
ence in regard to its moral character. One may try to resist 
temptation, and another may have no desire to resist; one 
may possess a strong desire always to do right, and the other 
not care whether he does right or wrong. A case of actual 
fact will illustrate : 
Some twenty-five years ago two men worked together in 
a manufacturing establishment in Boston. Both were mar- 
ried men. One was particularly careful of his reputation, 
scrupulously honest, and was in every respect considered 
strictly moral. The other was a libertine, and boasted (as 
is altogether too common in certain places) of his lack of 
care concerning the moral quality of his acts, or whether he 
had the good opinion of his feilow-rnen or not. One day a 
travelling phrenologist called where they were engaged, and 
wished to examine their heads and give phrenological charts. PHRENOLOGICAL EXAMINATION. 
307 
The two men agreed between themselves to submit to an 
examination ; but it was also privately understood between 
them that both were, if possible, to mislead the phrenologist 
and give him an incorrect idea as to their personal char- 
acters. The libertine was to act the role of a very moral 
and pious character, in order to test the skilfulness of the 
phrenologist. 
The first to be examined was the moral man. The phre- 
nologist gave him an excellent character, commending his 
faithfulness to his family, and said he was careful of his 
language, avoiding all profane and irreverent talk. It was 
strongly intimated to the examiner that he had made a radical 
mistake in the character he had given ; but he insisted that 
he knew he was correct in his estimation of character, for 
no man could be produced with such a phrenological organ- 
ization who was unchaste or immoral, and from that state- 
ment he would not vary. When told that he ought to hear 
the profanity indulged in when matters went wrong in that 
man’s department, he replied, " That man cannot swear; 
no man with his phrenological organization was ever in the 
habit of doing so.” 
The libertine then sat for examination. The first remark 
of the phrenologist was, in substance, Here is a man who 
will not be faithful to one wife ; and in other respects he 
gave a correct portrayal of his character. The writer was 
present, but was suspicious that some one had before informed 
the phrenologist concerning the characters he would find. 
However, the libertine did not mistrust that such was the 
case ; and after the phrenologist had left, he said : " Now you 
see that men are not responsible for being as they are. You 
are acting out your nature according to the organization of 
your brain, and you cannot be otherwise than as you are 308 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
now. I also am acting out my nature just as it was origi- 
nally intended that I should.” 
To this the reply was substantially as follows : " Now, 
B , you know better than that. You know that you and 
I have like passions ; but when tempted to do wrong I deter- 
mine to do no wrong. You can do the same if you desire 
to do so ; but, according to your own daily confession, you 
do not care whether you do right or wrong in the matter of 
the gratification of your passions. This has been your habit 
until it has become a sort of second nature. If you wished 
to restrain yourself, and could not do so, then there might 
be truth in your assertion that you are acting out you ’ nature 
as the Creator intended you should. Or, if you were so 
created that it was impossible for you to desire to do differ- 
ently, then again you might be excused for violating most 
of the commands in the Decalogue.” 
The excuse of this libertine is substantially the same that 
has been made in all past ages by those who have been 
accustomed to violate all moral laws and the proprieties of 
every-day life since Cain asked, "Am I my brother’s 
keeper ? ” They have always claimed that they were simply 
following out propensities in their very natures, and hence 
are accustomed to assert that the fact that such propensities 
are implanted relieves their acts from the strength of moral 
turpitude. 
If one inherits such an organization that it is impossible for 
him to wish to do right, or to care if he does wrong, so that 
under no circumstances could he desire to do better, then 
there would be an apparent excuse, and that excuse would 
be moral imbecility. But that could not be so in this liber- 
tine’s case, for no one was quicker than he in detecting 
wrong in others, and quicker in pointing it out. Hence the DECREES OE THE DEITY. 
309 
pretence, that when he was acting immorally he was carry- 
ing out just what the Creator intended he should, was with- 
out truth behind it, and was simply pretence. 
Although this libertine had a brilliant intellect he went 
from bad to worse, until about twenty years later he became 
a wreck morally and physically, and filled a drunkard’s 
grave. Can any one believe that the Creator deliberately 
endowed this man with brilliant parts and then intentionally 
beclouded his moral nature for the purpose of sending the 
helpless victim to a drunkard’s grave ? To me such an idea 
seems preposterous ; and yet that would be the logical result 
of the position he took in regard to his moral responsibilities. 
I am aware that many good men have contended that the 
foreknowledge of the Deity is equivalent to a decree, or pre- 
destination, and that the Deity would never create a man 
unless he intended at the time of his creation that all of his 
misfortunes, sorrows, and crimes should take place in regular 
appointed time and order. But such an assumption is be- 
yond my power of comprehension. 
The doctrines of Reprobation and the damnation of unbap- 
tized infants were also formerly taught by excellent men; 
but it has always seemed to me that while with one breath 
such teachers described the Deity as " merciful and gracious,” 
with the next breath they clothed him with the attributes of 
a fiend. 
W. E. H, Lecky, on pp. 96, 97, "History of Euro- 
pean Morals,” writes: "That a little child who lives but a 
few moments after birth, and dies before it has been sprinkled 
with the sacred water, is in such a sense responsible for its 
ancestors having six thousand years before eaten some for- 
bidden fruit that it may with perfect justice be resuscitated 
and cast into an abyss of eternal fire in expiation of this an- 310 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
cestral crime, that an All-Righteous and All-Merciful Creator, 
in the full exercise of those attributes deliberately calls into 
existence sentient beings whom He has from eternity irrevo- 
cably destined to endless, unspeakable, unmitigated torture, 
are propositions which are at once so extravagantly absurd 
and so ineffably atrocious that their adoption might well lead 
men to doubt the universality of moral perceptions. Such 
teaching is in fact simply demonism, and demonism in its 
most extreme form. It attributes to the Creator acts of in- 
justice and of barbarity, which it would be absolutely impos- 
sible for the imagination to surpass, acts before which the 
most monstrous excesses of human cruelty dwindle into in- 
significance, acts which are in fact considerably worse than 
any that theologians have attributed to the devil.” 
How good men with good general judgments and benev- 
olent dispositions ever could have brought themselves to 
believe such contradictory doctrines concerning the " Just and 
Merciful ”is more than my philosophy can comprehend. If 
such beliefs now obtained credence with any considerable 
number of intelligent and reflective men it would seem to 
indicate that human nature is sadly in need of a rapid 
upward moral development, or else the advocates of the 
doctrine of " total depravity ” will have the best of the 
argument. It does not seem possible that one of a reflective 
and philosophical mind, unless his moral sense was in a 
certain sense perverted, could believe in the Doctrine of 
Reprobation as it was once taught. 
The reason why such doctrines formerly obtained so gen- 
eral belief is because a class of theologians assumed that 
certain attributes must of necessity belong to the Deity, and 
then, by carrying these assumptions out to their apparently 
logical conclusions, they arrived at absurd results. FALLACY. 
311 
The fallacy in such reasoning lies in its starting-point, 
viz., the assumption that certain attributes must of necessity 
belong to the Great Overruling Power, when in fact neither 
theologians nor any other persons can know positively what 
the complete attributes of the Unknowable and Unsearchable 
are ; and thus we are ignorant just where we seem the most 
to need information. 
But, strangely enough, certain theologians, even in this nine- 
teenth century, continue to assert that a disbelief in certain 
assumed tenets which they teach constitutes a heinous sin. 
What monstrous credulity must human nature be endowed 
with to allow such absurd assumptions to frighten men out 
of their undoubted right to honestly and conscientiously 
think for themselves in religious matters ! It is, however, 
true that when a man rejects an important and evident moral 
truth because his moral state is such that that truth is repul- 
sive to him he does violence to his moral nature, and hence 
will be likely to fall in with grievous error. 312 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
CHAPTER XIV. 
CONCLUDING SPECULATIONS. 
The real issues or points now to be decided are, first, 
whether men are possessed of a spiritual nature, or, on the 
other hand, whether men are simply intelligent animals and 
nothing more. 
If man has nothing but animal nature, and death is the 
last of him, and he becomes convinced that such is the fact, 
then it is evident that pleasure, present or prospective, will 
naturally be his highest aim; and, in fact, this is all that can 
reasonably be expected of him. The idea of duty as such 
implying any moral quality under such circumstances cannot 
have deep-seated influence with thinking men. 
Yet, even if men are mere animals, it is better that 
animals should so conduct themselves as to gain general 
confidence in, rather than distrust of, each other; and they 
should be friendly, rather than hate each other. If life on 
this earth is all the life allotted to men it certainly is best 
that men should make the most of their friendships and 
social amenities. Thus the having of rules for the regula- 
tion of conduct towards each other is by no means useless. 
But that the belief that certain acts are right and 
opposite acts wrong is universal among intelligent men I 
think will not be denied. Even savages have their moral 
and property laws, however they may vary between them- 
selves in regard to what these laws should be. One may 
think a certain course right, and another think a like course J. s. MILL 
313 
wrong; yet, from his point of view, every one who is not an 
idiot has certain ideas of wrong and right. Can we then 
doubt that a sense of right and wrong inheres in our very 
natures ? 
Doubtless man is so made that he naturally connects 
moral conduct with the enjoyment of happiness,—for I 
believe that this is founded upon a law of nature ; but some 
carry their ideas of right and wrong beyond the point where 
they expect to experience happiness; and such are willing 
to suffer intensely rather than yield up their convictions of 
right. Something like wilfulness often shows itself in this 
connection. To illustrate this point I will quote from J. 
S. Mill’s " Examination of Sir Wm. Hamilton’s Philosophy,” 
p. 131, in which he says: "If I am informed that the 
world is ruled by a being whose attributes are infinite, but 
what they are we cannot learn, nor what the principles of 
his government, except that the highest human morality 
which we are capable of conceiving does not sanction them, 
convince me of it, and I will bear my fate as I may. But 
when I am told that I must believe this, and at the same 
time call this being by the names which express and affirm 
the highest human morality, I say in plain terms that I will 
not. Whatever power such a being may have over me, 
there is one thing which he shall not do : he shall not com- 
pel me to worship him. I will call no being good who is 
not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow- 
creatures ; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for 
not so calling him, to hell I will go.” 
Here, certainly, Mill carries his ideas of right and wrong 
far beyond the place where he can expect to experience hap- 
piness, and proves that he would be willing to be tortured 
rather than fall down and worship a false god, or one whose 314 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
character he could not reverence. What pleasure could he 
expect to experience from thus being tortured ; and all this 
on account of his deep sense of right and wrong? Surely 
his sense of right and wrong must be very clearly cut, or he 
would not be willing to endure so much simply for an idea 
which may be a delusion, if it can be traced simply to in- 
herited notions. 
Mr. Jackson, in his "Prize Essay,” remarks upon this pe- 
culiarity of Mr. Mill’s reasoning, and says (p. 224) : "We are 
equally sure that ' Godliness is profitable for all things,’ and 
that ' Honesty is the best policy.’ But then we are quite sure 
also that the final cause of godliness is not profit, noi its essen- 
tial nature a love of gain ; and that policy is not a true de- 
scription of honesty, nor the being politic the true and proper 
aim of the honest man. And Mr. Mill, when his moral 
sentiments asserted themselves, felt these certainties as ele- 
ments of his inner life. Rather than worship a Being whose 
unknown moral attributes fell beneath, not the dictates of 
Utility, but the purest instincts of his own inmost morality, 
Mr. Mill goes on to declare that he is willing to suffer the 
horrors of Eternal death. Hell is better than a violation of 
his own moral nature. Can this be a declaration deduced 
from the supreme law of Interest? Is it not rather a founda- 
tion maxim of independent morality ? Violate such founda- 
tion maxims, says the independent moralist, and you need not 
even speak of ' Going to hell,’ hell will come to you ! Sooner 
or later you will find its undying torments within you.” 
Probably this sense of right and wrong is a part of the 
very nature given us from the Eternal Fountain of all 
morality and intelligence. The fact of inheritance of certain 
peculiarities is not doubted; but I must doubt the truth of 
the assertion that our moral sense is entirely dependent upon MORAL RESPONSIBILITY. 
ideas of utility, or upon inherited ideas of pain or pleasure 
experienced by our ancestors. The very fact of the univer- 
sal prevalence of the moral sense in intelligent men seems to 
point to the origin from whence all that is valuable in 
humanity must have been derived, or to the Power which 
has constituted Man a Morally Responsible being. 
This opens the question as to who is responsible for the 
acts of men. Those who contend that an All-Wise Intelli- 
gence has absolutely and arbitrarily decreed everything 
which comes to pass, in such a way that nothing can or ever 
could happen otherwise than it does happen, virtually make 
this Intelligence the cause of all the deeds committed. Such 
deny moral freedom to man except in the sense that he has 
the power to choose oneway and only one way, and thus, of 
necessity, he must choose as he does. This appears to destroy 
his moral responsibilities. But, says one, why did a wise God 
create man, when he must foreknow at the time of his crea- 
tion all the trouble man would experience, as well as all the 
suffering he would have to endure? You ask me too hard a 
question ; but I will suggest some thoughts connected there- 
with. In the first place we must understand what the de- 
sign was in creating man, before we shall be able to pass 
upon the benevolence or otherwise of man’s creation. What 
purpose did the Deity have in his creation ? If He intended 
to create man a morally responsible being, He must of neces- 
sity give him a certain kind of freedom, or he could not be 
morally responsible. In this supposed case, it is also true, 
that, after purposing to make man a moral being, and creat- 
ing him such, the Deity could not prevent him from making 
use of such moral freedom as He had bestowed upon him. 
It also appears to be true, that the Deity could not make 
man morally free, and yet at the same time place him under 316 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
complete and absolute necessity; because, according to the 
proper signification of the words freedom and necessity, 
these very terms themselves imply a contradiction. 
Now, upon this hypothesis (if it is a correct one), the 
Deity was in such a position that he must endow man with the 
power of doing wrong (if man chose to do so), or man could 
not be held morally responsible ; for otherwise he would be 
morally a machine. If God chose to make man morally 
responsible, he could not absolutely and arbitrarily prevent 
him from doing wrong provided he desired to do so. This 
seems too plain to need argument. Now whether it was a 
benevolent act to create man as he is cannot be decided until 
we can first decide what the final history and destiny of the 
human race is to be. If there is to be an eternal state of 
conscious existence (as the Christian and also many heathen 
and infidel philosophers have believed), where all the wrongs 
endured in this world shall be righted, that is a very impor- 
tant consideration to be taken into the account.1 
But if all the existence man has is confined to his present 
life upon the earth, that is quite another thing, and brings 
in other considerations. But until we can decide these pre- 
liminary questions we shall not be in a position to sit in 
judgment (as some irreverently seem ready to do) upon the 
lln all ages since men have had any clear conceptions concerning man’s 
responsibilities there have been philosophers who have thought there must be a 
conscious state of existence after death, in order to make equitable adjustments 
for the sufferings and miseries which good men have suffered while on the earth ; 
and also that, there must be a state of retributive justice, where those who have 
caused untold miseries on the earth will at least have to reflect on the conse- 
quences of their previous wickedness; because otherwise they could not see how 
equal justice could be meted out or distributed. Thus the doctrine of future 
rewards and punishments has been held by many among barbarous tribes, and by 
many learned heathens, and also by some infidel philosophers, as well as by 
believers in a Divine revelation. MENTAL SUFEEEINGS. 
317 
acts of the Almighty Creator. But suppose the present life 
is all that man has, and our hopes of immortality are mere 
pleasant dreams, shall we then conclude that man experiences 
more sorrow than joy, more injustice than justice? Rather, 
do not a majority of men experience happiness nearly in 
proportion to the number and quality of their virtuous acts ? 
Who does not cherish life such as it is and for what it is ? 
How few, in a sane state of mind, are ready to lay life down 
rather than stay even in this state of sorrow ! The majority 
of our sufferings are more mental than physical, and many 
of our sorrows arise from disappointed hopes or ambitions; 
and often they arise from desires which we have no right to 
cherish. If we go back and lay all this trouble at the door 
of the Deity, our reason will not bear us out in our accusations. 
Reason proclaims that if the Deity is a perfect being He 
cannot be the author of moral wrong ; and if we are under 
complete necessity, and mere moral machines, it would appear 
to be the Creator who acts when man commits acts which 
would be criminal if man was free, but which seem to be no 
more criminal than the falling of a brick upon one’s head 
would be if man is under complete necessity. 
But we are conscious that we have a certain amount of 
freedom, and this very consciousness is the very highest 
authority in a matter like this ; and no amount of meta- 
physical reasoning can beat this consciousness of freedom 
out of us when we act in practical every-day life; and it 
seems to me that this very fact should convince every man 
that, in his immoral acts, he is not irresistibly driven to their 
commission ; and that it is absurd to assume that lying back 
of man’s will there is a series of causes foreordained which 
have unconsciously or consciously forced man to choose to 
do immoral acts. Even if one’s moral sense may become so ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
blunted that he does not think he does wrong when he grossly 
abuses his neighbor, no intelligent man’s moral senses ever 
become so blunted that he cannot feel that he is wronged 
when his neighbor wrongs him. 
Thus the assumption that men are under complete moral 
necessity in regard to deeds performed, however supported 
by apparent reason, leading as it does to absurd conclusions, 
cannot be a correct one. That men, in consequence of an 
unholy or vitiated bent of mind arising from an unhealthy 
moral condition of the " unconscious part of their natures,” 
may sometimes seem to be impelled to perform acts of wick- 
edness is true ; but who can show that men are not generally 
morally responsible for the disposition or bent of this "un- 
conscious part of their natures ” ? Have not voluntary acts 
of wickedness often modified this " unconscious part of their 
natures ” greatly for the worse ? 
Much connected with the origin and abstract nature of our 
mental and moral conceptions as well as concerning the 
origin and nature of life and the soul is shrouded in mystery, 
and it has been impossible for the intelligence of man to 
logically and harmoniously account for many seeming con- 
tradictions. Yet I have no doubt that if our minds ever 
become sufficiently capacious and sufficiently enlightened, all 
these seeming contradictions may appear no contradictions, 
but in perfect harmony with each other. 
There can be really no contradictions in the laws estab- 
lished by Infinite Intelligence in accordance with Infinite 
Wisdom, whether these laws relate to our mental, moral, or 
physical natures. 
Upon the supposition that man is under complete moral 
necessity, David Hume writes, what would be likely to sug- 
gest itself to a thinking mind, as follows ("Essays,” pp. 368, THE ULTIMATE AUTHOR. 
319 
369) : " The ultimate author of all our volitions is the Creator 
of the world, who first bestowed motion on this immense 
machine, and placed all beings in that particular position, 
whence every subsequent event, by an inevitable necessity, 
must result. 
"Human actions, therefore, either can have no moral tur- 
pitude at all, as proceeding from so good a cause, or, if they 
have any turpitude, they must involve our Creator in the 
same guilt, while he is acknowledged to be their ultimate 
cause and author. For, as a man who fired a mine is answer- 
able for all the consequences, whether the train he employed 
be long or short; so, wherever a continued chain of neces- 
sary causes is fixed, that being, either finite or infinite, who 
produces the first, is likewise the author of all the rest, and 
must both bear the blame and acquire the praise which 
belong to them. Our clear and unalterable ideas of morality 
establish this rule, upon unquestionable reasons, when we 
examine the consequences of any human action; and these 
reasons must still have greater force when applied to the 
volitions and intentions of a Being infinitely wise and 
powerful. 
Ignorance or impotence may be pleaded for so limited 
a creature as man ; but those imperfections have no place in 
our Creator, He foresaw, he ordained, he intended all those 
actions of men which we so rashly pronounce criminal. And 
we must therefore conclude, either that they are not criminal, 
or that the Deity, not man, is accountable for them. But, 
as either of these positions is absurd and impious, it follows 
that the doctrine from which they are deduced cannot pos- 
sibly be true, as being liable to all the same objections. An 
absurd consequence, if necessary, proves the original doc- 
trine to be absurd ; in the same manner as criminal actions 320 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
render criminal the original cause, if the connection between 
them be necessary and inevitable.” 
And Hume’s thoughts, as expressed onp. 371, are worthy 
the consideration of such as rashly presume to hold the 
Deity morally responsible for faults which their own in- 
most moral natures tell them they are themselves morally 
responsible for. Hume adds : " These are mysteries which 
mere natural and unassisted Reason is very unfit to handle; 
and whatever system she embraces she must find herself 
involved in inextricable difficulties, and even contradictions, 
at every step which she takes with regard to such objects. 
To reconcile the indifference and contingency cf human 
actions with prescience, or to defend absolute decrees, and 
yet free the Deity from being the author of sin, has been 
found hitherto to exceed all the power of philosophy. Happy, 
if she be thence sensible of her temerity, when she pries into 
these sublime mysteries, and, leaving a scene so full of ob- 
scurities and perplexities, return, with suitable modesty, to 
her true and proper province, the examination of common 
life, where she will find difficulties enough to employ her 
inquiries, without launching into so boundless an ocean of 
doubt, uncertainty, and contradiction.” 
We cannot deny that a consciousness of guilt and feelings 
of sorrow are natural to all men with whom we would be 
willing to trust our interests, whether these interests be our 
property, reputation, or even our lives. Every man who 
can be safely trusted is sensible to such emotions. Whence 
do these originate, if behind them there are no realities which 
they represent ? Philosophize and dispute and doubt as we 
may, we cannot flee from our own natures. These very 
natures themselves indicate our moral responsibility ; and if 
by sophistries and special pleadings, aided by our own unhal- MORAL LAWS. 
321 
lowed desires, we convince ourselves that we are not mo rally- 
responsible, our very inmost natures themselves rise up in 
eternal protest against such a conclusion. The whole organ- 
ization of society, all law, all duties between man and man, 
presuppose moral responsibility. Why so natural the detes- 
tation of men guilty of unnecessary cruelty, ingratitude, 
treachery, theft, and murder, except upon the principle that 
these men are responsible for their acts ? We do not deceive 
ourselves upon this point in our every-day acts. When we 
can show that black is white, and make the worse appear 
the better reason, then with a like consistency may we try 
to lessen or moderate our detestation of meanness, moral 
turpitude, treachery, falsehood, and crimes against nature. 
But the reflective mind cannot help asking a still farther 
question, viz., If man is morally responsible for his acts, 
and he has violated moral laws, what shall he do to make 
amends for such violation ? Is it in his power to make any 
such amends ? 
Then another question arises: If we are under moral 
laws are the operations of those laws ever suspended ? Are 
moral laws, like the physical laws, unbending, and inevitable, 
in their consequences? Some contend that in the moral 
world, as in the physical world, man must take the full 
consequences of his acts, without any abatement of their 
severity. If these consequences are punitive, and must be 
expiated to their full extent whether the offender tries to 
make reparation for his misdeeds or not, then such a rule 
would shut off all chance of forgiveness by the Supreme 
Law-giver. But, if a man trespasses against his fellow, the 
aggrieved one may, and not unfrequently does, forgive the 
offender, when he has made the best reparation it is in his 
power to make. Shall the Deity, in this respect, have less 322 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
liberty than man, when the offender against moral law 
atones as far as he is able for his guilt? 
Superstitious savages as well as enlightened Christians 
have some idea of propitiating an unseen power. Every 
prostration before a heathen idol is an indication of a belief 
in some kind of propitiation. Where does such a belief 
come from ? Is it all delusion ? If one believes that there 
is no just basis from which such or similar impressions may 
arise, however misguided heathen devotees may be, let him 
show, if he can, that such, or similar impressions do not 
comport with the very nature of the human mind. 
Similar impressions are found among intelligent and 
learned men. Is the human mind so constituted that it 
must necessarily be the sport of delusion? If so, are those 
who talk confidently concerning moral and religious delu- 
sions of others sure that they are not themselves the subjects 
of delusion? Let them prove that they are not themselves 
deluded before they assume that they are right and that 
millions of other intelligent men must be wrong. Let them 
show (if they can) that the Deity cannot forgive, and that 
penalties for sins may not be remitted to the truly penitent, 
before they presume to assert positively that the consequences 
of every wrong act must of necessity be fully expiated 
through the personal sufferings of the offender. 
But I can see no philosophical reason why infractions of 
moral laws should not be followed by inevitable penalties as 
certainly as violations of physical laws. When we violate 
both a moral and a physical law in the same act, the physical 
part of the penalty must certainly be paid. 
But David said (addressing the Deity), " But there is for- 
giveness with Thee, that thou mayest be feared.” Does any 
one know that David was mistaken when he wrote this ? MORAL QUESTIONS. 
323 
Unaided reason is entirely incompetent to deal success- 
fully with this problem; and if the reason of David was 
assisted, or if he was under inspiration, might not he have 
understood more concerning this question than a modern 
speculative moralist can ? 
Still another question arises: If the penalties for broken 
moral laws must be fully expiated and endured without 
mitigation, is it possible that one who was not the real 
offender can, through his own consent, be treated as the 
offender, and thereby the real offender escape the penalty 
which, as a result of his acts, became justly due? 
We are accustomed to hear about settling moral and 
religious questions upon a scientific basis ; but the answer to 
this last question lies outside the domains of physical science. 
Yet questions concerning penalties for broken laws are often 
discussed, and are worthy of serious consideration. It is, 
however, of the highest importance that we learn how to 
avoid violating the laws of our being, both physical and 
moral. 
To many these questions seem puerile, but, in view of the 
consequences which may follow, reasons for their careful 
consideration should not be lightly treated, especially when 
millions of intelligent men who are as likely to be right 
in their opinions as we are believe these questions to be of 
supreme importance. 
After all that has been written concerning speculative be- 
lief, and the desires warping the opinions of men, the reader 
may possibly desire to know what belief the writer has. 
By speculative belief I mean that which is theoretical 
and has its roots in something which transcends the bounds 
of experience. Speculative reasoning soars into the region 
of the unknown. This may be distinguished from belief 324 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
which rests on the teachings of purely physical sciences, 
though ninety-nine out of every hundred of those who pro- 
fess to base their opinions upon the teachings of physical 
science are more or less influenced in these very opinions by 
their own speculations. 
The substance of the writer’s speculative belief, so far as 
it relates to the origin of life and all finite existences through 
a great originating Power, is substantially as follows : He 
believes in an Overruling Power endowed with Infinite Intel- 
ligence and Infinite Benevolence. That this Power, or Be- 
ing, caused the heavens and the earth to exist, either by an 
Almighty fiat, or through the action of natural laws which 
He constituted and ordained ; and, further, that He caused to 
exist all the planets, suns, and stars, and that the whole 
universe, both animate and inanimate (as well as the inter- 
ests of all on this tiny ball which we call the earth), is under 
His constant and direct supervision; that we see manifesta- 
tions of His power equally in the budding of the trees, the 
beautiful flowers, the mighty ocean, the gentle zephyr, and 
the hurricane’s blast; that all the powers of nature are sub- 
ject to Him, and nothing can exist contrary to what ITe has 
ordered. Though the nature of this Power is incomprehen- 
sible, yet it is personal, or akin to what we term personal, 
and not a mere blind force. (I use the word "personal” 
because it expresses the idea, so far as we can comprehend 
it, nearer than any other word in our language; and yet I 
do not suppose that the personality of Deity is of such a 
nature that man can comprehend it.) 
Many events in life (so-called providences) which seem 
mysterious, and in certain respects harsh or cruel, are by this 
Power ordered in mercy to the world at large. 
There is reason to believe that the Creator has arranged OMNIPOTENT POWER. 
325 
this world in the best manner possible for the ultimate hap- 
piness and welfare of His creatures, when we consider how 
these creatures are constituted. 
Yet it must not, however, be forgotten that actions of so- 
called natural laws often modify greatly the characters and 
constitutions of men as well as animals. 
Terrific storms which carry death and destruction into 
certain localities are also, when considered in their whole 
effects, instruments of purification, and thus probably of 
mercy to the world. Even in sudden taking off of men who 
are beloved, useful, and honored, this Omnipotent Power is, 
in general, carrying out His programme of mercy. Some 
providences may, and actually do appear to bear hard on in- 
dividuals. Some wicked men appear to prosper, and others 
seem never to get proper retribution for their crimes, or for 
the sorrow they may have caused. Good men suffer in a 
mysterious way, and appear to be cruelly afflicted ; and, look- 
ing at this life only, there seems to be a lack of equity. 
But this apparent lack of equity is not real, but only appar- 
ent ; for, in order to draw just and full conclusions of the 
equity, we must take into consideration the whole duration 
of man’s existence. 
The doctrines of Evolution, which imply the existence of 
an active developing force behind all the phenomena of life, 
and which in general tend to raise the lower to a higher and 
better state of existence, themselves teach that this Power, 
in thus raising the lower to a higher state, is now exerting a 
benevolent influence. Even the taking away of the poorer 
to make way for the better is in itself an act of benevolence ; 
and thus the operations of what are called the stern and un- 
feeling laws of nature result in actual good. 
So many things indicate the mercy of God that we can- 326 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIEIES. 
not reasonably doubt in cases which seem to be exceptions 
to the exercise of this merciful care that these apparent 
exceptions are seeming exceptions. But, to square all the 
sufferings and wrongs of men, and make all things equitable, 
there should be another state of existence, where wrongs 
suffered in this world will be righted, and justice tempered 
with mercy will forever exist. In a perfect being justice 
must be an essential attribute ; and thus no man has suffered 
or ever will suffer injustice at the hands of a being in whom 
perfection is centred. 
Man is the highest intelligence on the earth, but there may be 
on the planets intelligent beings of a much higher order than 
any on the earth ; and on the planets which are believed to ac- 
company the great fixed stars there may be still higher orders 
of intelligence. From our limited capacities we do not 
know a thousandth part of what might be known, and the 
most learned man on the earth does not know a thousandth 
part of what would be known in regard to matters of daily 
occurrence if his mind were sufficiently capacious to compre- 
hend these matters. Other and higher intelligences may 
understand the mysterious connection between souls and 
bodies as well as the engineer or the builder of a locomotive 
understands its construction and powers. No man under- 
stands the hidden causes of life except as he refers them to 
the Creator of all things. A horse sees a railroad train, but 
does not comprehend its moving power; so we see life devel- 
oped, but do not understand its secret moving power. 
The writer here makes a digression, because some writers 
assert that we have no reason to believe that other planets 
are inhabited by higher orders of intelligences than are on 
the earth, or by any order of intelligent beings ; and they 
seem to consider it a kind of treason to revelation not to DIFFERENT ORDERS OF INTELLIGENCES. 
327 
believe that all the wondrous Machinery of the universe was 
made for man’s especial benefit. While admitting that ter- 
restrial nature is in a certain sense arranged for man’s benefit, 
it may also, in a similar way, be arranged for the benefit of 
the brute creation, and in fact for all animate existences. 
The arrangements of the solar sytem are so adjusted as to 
develop life in all its multifarious forms; but when one 
asserts that this little planet called earth, which is like a mus- 
tard-seed when compared with the universe which can be seen 
by the aid of the telescope (to say nothing of what is beyond 
the reach of telescopic vision), is of more importance than 
the rest of the universe, he virtually asserts that a pin’s head 
may be of greater importance than the most magnificent edi- 
fice on the face of the earth; but when a man asserts that 
he belongs to the highest order of intelligences which live 
O O <D 
anywhere in the solar system he exhibits egotism and vanity, 
not to say exceeding folly. It is true that we know nothing 
absolutely concerning life on other planets, but analogy 
would teach us that the larger planets would not be made en- 
tirely subservient to the smaller ones; and when we see 
the laws of gravitation called into action we see at least the 
importance of the greater weight of matter; and, for all 
that we know to the contrary, this may also teach us that the 
animated existences there may also be as superior in intelli- 
gence as their habitation is greater. Certainly no man knows 
that this may not be so.1 But, leaving this digression, I will 
proceed. 
1 The writer i 3 aware that some have undertaken to show that the planets Jupi- 
ter and Saturn are too far removed from the sun, and in too cold a region, to support 
life. Others have asserted that for various reasons Jupiter and Saturn are not now in 
a condition to support life of intelligent beings, and that ages must elapse and vast 
changes come before animal life can be developed there; that these planets are 
now in a condition similar to what the earth was during the period of coal 328 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
With all man’s boasted intelligence he has so limited a 
mental scope that he cannot comprehend the springs of life, 
and thus it is the highest folly to be dogmatic in those mat- 
ters of life concerning which no demonstrations exist. It is 
also unphilosophical for any man to shut his eyes to the facts 
connected with his mysterious being, and with positiveness 
deny the existence of an intelligent Creative Power which 
has constructed all these mysterious things, including the 
mental, moral, and physical constitutions of men. Man’s 
personal existence and moral obligations are matters of con- 
sciousness, and hence (concerning these facts) contain the 
most positive evidence he is capable of receiving. 
Jesus Christ taught that there is not only an Eternal God, 
but that man is a being destined to an Immortal Existence. 
Many millions of intelligent and honest men have fully credited 
these teachings, and enjoyed in anticipation, through faith and 
hope, the joys of a heavenly home. Science cannot throw any 
light here ; and if the longings for eternal life have no real basis 
to rest upon, but are mere delusions, wdiere do these delusions 
originate ? Are they not implanted in the very constitution 
of our natures ? How can we justly account for such a gen- 
eral impression and expectation in the minds of a large 
majority of intelligent men if these impressions and hopes 
are delusions? This problem is of the highest importance. 
In 1821 Lord Byron wrote, in answer to a letter inform- 
ing him of prayers in his behalf, as follows : " Indisputably 
the firm believers in the gospel have a great advantage over 
formation, viz.: That they are thickly enveloped by clouds and vapors, gen- 
erated by their internal heat; that these clouds prevent radiation of heat into 
space, and also prevent the rays of the sun from penetrating directly to their 
bodies, and hence with an atmosphere so loaded with vapor, at the present time, 
that they must be unfit for the abodes of living -animals, all of which may or 
may not be so. BYRON.—DR. RAYMOND. 
329 
all others, for this simple reason: that, if true, they will 
have their reward hereafter; and, if there be no hereafter, 
they can but be with the infidel in his eternal sleep, having 
had the assurance of an exalted hope through life, without 
subsequent disappointment, since (at the worst of them) 
'out of nothing, nothing can arise,’ not even sorrow.” 
Dr. Raymond, the founder and president of Yassar Col- 
lege, in his youth, gave little thought to the subject of his 
being, but when twenty years old he began to think it was 
high time that he should have some definite idea, if possi- 
ble, of the questions, Whence? Whither? And we find 
entered in his " Book of Comments ” the following pas- 
sage : 
"Is the religion of Christ a delusion, or is it not? I fear 
to think it is, and I fear to think it is not; for if it is a 
reality, it is an awful one to me; and if it is nothing but a 
mockery, what is the truth? What am I? Whithet am I 
tending? For what purpose is existence? To what shall 
I direct it? By what principles of action shall it be 
governed ? ” 
Different men come to different conclusions, and give 
different answers to such questions. Science can give no 
answer. Faith or non-faith must enter largely into 
reasonings when the attempt to answer is made. With 
Dr. Raymond, faith and reason conspired to make him 
believe that the religion of Christ was not a delusion, 
and hence he became a consistent Christian worker. 
Another man with the same evidence before him might 
turn out a confirmed sceptic. Why such a difference in 
conclusions from the same evidence? Let no sceptic 
assume, in a matter of scientific uncertainty like this, 
that the sceptic is the greater philosopher. But it is almost 330 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
universally the fact that religious sceptics do claim that 
they are sounder philosophers than the believers in the 
Christian religion. But is such a claim philosophical? 
In order to become a real believer in an immortal existence 
faith, and not science, must be the prevailing power. Hence 
if one cannot believe what cannot be demonstrated he must 
be a sceptic. But what then would become of a large portion 
of scientific theories which have gained general assent? 
They must certainly be doubted, for they are based on 
unknown premises, premises assumed, just as really as those 
in the belief in immortality. 
Many physical facts which are known by experience cannot 
be accounted for upon any known laws of nature, unless we 
accept supposed bases for facts, or treat them as facts, 
although no one knows whether these supposed bases be 
existent facts or not. If the statement that a great multitude 
of testimonies to belief in anything which cannot be demon- 
strated to be fact does not show this belief to be founded in 
truth is correct, then many scientific theories which are 
generally received as true must be regarded as unproved, 
and those who put confidence enough in such theories to 
make them the basis of action in practical life must be 
regarded as no philosophers, unless believers in immortality 
may be considered to have equally strong philosophical 
grounds for their belief. This idea has been before stated, 
but it will bear repeating again and again, in these days of 
professed disbelief in what cannot be demonstrated to be 
true. We cannot however find an intelligent and sane man 
who does not believe in much which cannot be demonstrated 
to be true. 
Without faith in things which are uncertain, the chief 
moving springs of our active lives would become paralyzed. THE UNKNOWN. 
331 
All persons are, to some extent, sceptics, and all, to some 
extent, exercise faith. 
All need humility when inquiring into the mysteries of our 
existence. With reverent awe we may justly inquire, 
Whence? Whither? and Where do our moral, religious, and 
educational responsibilities begin and end ? 
The force, strength, and extent of moral responsibilities 
appear greater to some than to others who are equally intelli- 
gent. To some the moral bearings of human conduct seem 
of the greatest importance, while to others they appear of 
very little consequence. Some walk carefully and reverently 
in the presence of the unknown; while others go heedlessly 
on, all the more carelessly the more solemn and mysterious 
the truths or facts are which ought if possible to be clearly 
apprehended. Men are rushing forward in the world like 
an army into battle, and the different feelings with which 
each meets the responsibilities, cares, and obligations of life 
are as manifest as the different emotions of soldiers going into 
battle. An old soldier said he had seen men of great 
physical power, and possessing undoubted courage of a 
certain kind, show unmistakable signs of fear before going 
into battle. 
Men who, in a pugilistic contest, would gladly fight any 
man in the regiment, shed tears like children, and had to be 
forced into line before the fight commenced. They were 
not afraid of what they could see, but the destructive power 
of an unseen bullet terrified them. On the contrary, men 
with less physical vigor, and who appeared to be quite 
timid, went into the battle without any visible signs of fear, 
and apparently as unmoved as if going to parade. 
Courage is thus shown to be of two essentially different 
kinds, the one meeting unseen dangers calmly, the other 332 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
meeting them with trembling. Now what makes this differ- 
ence? Is there a different kind of intelligence, which mani- 
fests itself in such strangely different ways ? or has conscience 
something to do with this difference ? 
No man can foretell how he will act in trying circum- 
stances. But there may be a vast difference between seen 
and unseen dangers, and the cautious and prudent man will 
hesitate before unnecessarily meeting the unseen. The 
organ of hope in some men is so large as to lead them to 
expect they will escape injury while others may be less 
fortunate. 
A statement may appear to be true, and yet not be true. 
Also, a thing may apparently exist, and not really exist. So 
an act may seem to be performed, and yet not be performed. 
The earth seems to stand still and the sun revolve around it. 
This false appearance results from our position on the earth, 
and our not perceiving its revolution because we are carried 
along with it. So, without careful thought, other things 
which do not exist may appear to be realities. Some facts 
are beyond our comprehension ; but, even if we cannot com- 
prehend them, it is still our privilege to ask, To what shall we 
liken facts which constitute that basis of truth? For truth 
must be in exact conformity with actual facts. 
Truth has a different appearance according to the position 
from which it is contemplated. For instance, views of the 
moon differ, and its light varies, with the position of the ob- 
server : at one time it is small, faint, and crescent-shaped, 
and only at its full can we get a complete view of its beau- 
tiful globular shape; and yet the moon itself remains the 
same, while to our vision it seems to change. 
Let me represent familiar illustrations of some partial 
views of truth held by various religious denominations and DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS TENETS. 
333 
scientific schools, for the of all are in some measure 
restricted. 
The Roman Catholics, as a religious denomination, discern 
great varieties of opinion prevalent where free thought and 
free discussion are allowed, and they also see that in such a 
commixture of thought no absolute and universal standard 
of belief pertaining to church creeds can obtain. They also 
see the necessity for some standard authority or court of 
ultimate appeal in these and like matters, and as a conse- 
quence the Pope and the Romish hierarchy are with them 
accepted as the highest court of appeal. 
Against this ultimate court in religious matters Protestant 
denominations remonstrate. Protestants profess to receive 
the Bible as their ultimate standard in spiritual matters; 
while the Roman Catholics appeal to the same Bible, but 
assert that it must be accepted as explained by their 
authorities. Evangelical Protestants make direct appeal to the 
authority of the Holy Scriptures ; and yet each of the various 
denominations is inclined to accuse all others of making too 
much of certain Scripture passages, and giving them undue 
prominence, while giving too little consideration to other 
passages which, they assert, should modify their belief. 
The justice of this or of a similar accusation appears in a 
greater or less degree in relation to all religious denomina- 
tions ; for, if one did not give more and another less promi- 
nence to certain Scripture doctrines, these different religious 
denominations would not exist. 
Yet in some respects all prominent religious denomina- 
tions hold much of the truth. There must be some funda- 
mental truths (which are genuine) held by every numerous 
sect in enlightened countries, whether these are scientific or 
religious sects, otherwise the leaders of these sects could not 334 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
make and hold together any considerable number of converts 
where free discussion is allowed. 
For instance, among the Protestants, the pronounced 
Calvinist sees prominently the justice of God and his Divine 
Sovereignty, and hence he receives the doctrine of Predesti- 
nation or Foreordination by an unchangeable Divine purpose ; 
and all his theology is in some measure colored by this 
view. 
The Arminians, followed in general by the Methodists, 
see the moral freedom of men, and as a consequence they 
have strong views of moral responsibility; and all their 
theology is in a measure squared to agree with these funda- 
mental ideas. 
The Universalist sees conspicuously the love and mercy 
of God, and does not deny his justice as he understands it; 
and all his theology is squared by his views of love as a 
Divine Attribute. 
Unitarians and Mohammedans see the unity of God, 
which is a most important truth ; and with them all else 
must be squared by that truth. 
The ancient Sadducees originally saw that virtue ought to 
be revered and loved for its own sake, rather than in the 
expectation of rewards (a very important truth), and to 
square that with their other beliefs (in their opinion) necessi- 
tated a disbelief in a future state of rewards or punishments ; 
and thus they denied the immortality of the soul. They 
saw that if the soul consciously exists in a future state it 
must be susceptible of happiness or unhappiness, and, 
further, that probably the condition of this consciousness 
must to some extent be modified by or connected with their 
previous moral character. 
As the Sadducees did not deny the existence of a Deity 335 
they could not deny that the consequences of deeds done in 
their present state of existence might in some way be felt 
during all conscious existence, and to avoid such a conclu- 
sion, a result so nearly equivalent to rewards and punish- 
ments, they taught that the soul must cease to exist. The 
Sadducees appear to be an exception to the general rule, viz., 
that those who believe in God also believe in immortality. 
EELIGIOUS TENETS. 
The ancient Pharisees originally were pure, and saw that 
purity and devotion should be prominent in the lives of men. 
They also saw the need of commentaries on their sacred 
books ; but by perverting originally pure ideas, they rushed 
into devotion to ordinances and traditions, to the exclusion 
of other and more important matters. Their mistakes in 
this direction gave strength to the position of the Sadducees, 
who were mostly free-thinkers and sceptics, wealthy and 
powerful, and while they never numerically large (the 
multitudes never going with them), yet on account of their 
wealth and learning their influence was great for a number 
of centuries. The great mass of the Jews, however, sided 
with the Pharisees, who were believers in a future state of 
rewards or punishments. After some eight or nine cen- 
turies the Sadducees substantially ran out; and yet in one 
sense they never ran out, for their representatives are still 
found among religious sceptics and scientific materialists 
to-day. 
By way of digression it may be remarked that denomina- 
tions or sects are, in some respects, like nations. 
When they discover a lack of interest or cohesion they 
are apt to concentrate their energies in a contest with another 
sect, and while thus engaged they overlook their own 
internal dissensions. 
In this way sects, nations, and denominations are often per- 336 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
petuated which otherwise might crumble for want of cohesive 
power. 
But why cannot men select genuine truths, separate them 
from error, and thus form scientific or religious sects embrac- 
ing all that is good and true both in religion and philosophy ? 
Really, would not that be delightful and beautiful if it was 
practicable ? That would indeed be a genuine broad church 
or perfect philosophical society. But who shall select 
these genuine and choice truths ? Where are the men who 
have such extensive and infallible views of truth in its ful- 
ness that they can completely separate truth from error? 
Where can we find any man or any set of men who have 
not preconceived ideas or opinions which in some respects 
color their views of the full truth ? Who is able to compre- 
hend the full truth? As Pilate asked, " What is truth?” 
Those who ask this question may justly be requested to 
define or describe the combination of facts concerning which 
they desire information; for truth must always have some 
connection with legitimate facts, or some state of facts. To 
illustrate, suppose we desire particular information about the 
sources of light, and we are told that light is always light, 
and that pure light is always of similar composition. But 
the light from the sun originates in the sun itself, while the 
light of the moon is not original with the moon, but is re- 
flected light. 
Rays of light may also be of different shades. Thus, 
when we ask What is truth ? we must take into consideration 
every legitimate fact pertaining to the subject about which 
information is sought, or our views will be partial, and thus 
may be misleading as really as if we were to suppose that 
the moon is self-luminous because its light may appear to 
be so to careless and not inquiring observers. SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. 
337 
Now turn to scientific schools and look, for instance, at 
the latest scientific theories of development. Some theory of 
development must, to a certain extent, be true. Of course, 
without development the child never would become a man, 
nor the egg a chick, nor the acorn an oak. What then are its 
limits, and where shall it commence and stop? I say com- 
mence and stop, for it takes as much power to arrest develop- 
ment, when it has once started, as it does to commence the 
development. 
Shall we go with Theckel to the moner, and through 
that to "spontaneous generation,” for the origin of life? 
Shall we accept Lamarck’s theory ? Lamarck attempted to 
explain all varieties of life by development, through practice 
and habit, or through the laws of heredity. Or shall we 
accept the theory of Darwin, who, while allowing for an 
original creation of the lowest forms of life, asserts that all 
the numberless varieties of life can he accounted for under 
the laws of development ? Or shall we agree with that class 
of creationists who believe that every distinct species of liv- 
ing creatures represents a creative thought of the Supreme 
Being ? 
There are doubtless limitations on each and every one of 
these theories, and I do not believe any one has ever com- 
prehended all the truth concerning the origin and develop- 
ment of life. But by proper study much can be learned 
which contains fragments of the truth, and by putting these 
fragments together we may hope to come nearer the actual 
truth. 
That there is such a thing as actual truth, and that this is 
opposed to all error, I cannot doubt; although some have 
claimed that all error is partial truth, as well as that " all 
evil is partial good.” The only difficulty we experience in 338 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
deciding what is actual and absolute truth arises from the 
imperfection of our mental constitutions, our defective train- 
ing, or our prejudices. There can be no doubt that the 
human mind has the ability to reason correctly from proper 
premises, if it is possible to lay aside all unreasonable preju- 
dice and come with a simple desire to know the truth in its 
purity and simplicity. But the instant one takes a stand on 
some particular truth to the exclusion of other truths all his 
subsequent reasonings are modified or distorted through the 
influence of that truth to which he gives undue prominence. 
The difficulty that here occurs is the question where tne 
various modifications which the bearing of one truth has upon 
another shall cease. 
For instance, a statement may contain an absolute truth, 
and this statement standing by itself may be absolutely true, 
and yet, without other things being received and considered in 
connection with this truth, the statement may be practically 
equivalent to an untruth. 
The truth that man is a free moral agent is a grand one; 
but if we do not also take into consideration the fact that 
from the very composition of man’s mental constitution 
there are certain restrictions upon his perfect freedom of 
thought we shall accept as truth what is nearly equivalent 
to an untruth. 
Here comes into action the unconscious nature of man (of 
which his desires, emotions, and affections are indices), and 
this unconscious nature works mysteriously to color all his 
opinions. Our unconscious natures act upon the intellectual 
faculties in one respect like colored glass upon the rays 
of light, and our views are like light passing through 
this glass. The light will be tinged or colored by the 
glass, no matter how pure the original ray; and thus WHAT IS TRUTH? 
339 
again it becomes us to ask, in all humility, "What is 
truth ? ” 
Yet truth, when discovered in its purity, is one of the 
most beautiful and enjoyable of all things in the universe. 
Whose heart has not thrilled with joy at the discovery of 
some new fact, or some new view of truth ? Thus Jesus 
said, "I am the way, the truth, and the light,” As much 
as to say that the light and the truth are equally necessary 
to man’s well-being, and each is an element of great joy to 
the honest seekers for the right, and that He, Jesus, would 
in like manner be a source of joy and comfort to all who 
receive His teachings and make them the rule of their lives. 
We have the testimonies of multitudes who claim to have 
experienced great joy in following the rules laid down by 
Him whom they receive as a Divine Master. 
In the last few pages I have been writing principally of 
speculative views, or beliefs, rather than of views of truth 
which can be demonstrated with the certainty of a mathe- 
matical proposition. Now there are certain truths that are 
as certainly demonstrable or axiomatic as any mathematical 
proposition can be. For example, the axiom that the finite 
cannot comprehend the Infinite, but that the Infinite may 
comprehend the finite, is indisputably true. 
Again, if we decidedly hate a person, we know that fact abso- 
lutely through our consciousness ; and this needs no demonstra- 
tion, for consciousness in this case is the most positive and ab- 
solute witness. So, if we greatly love another person, we 
know that fact absolutely. We also know that the company 
of some persons is agreeable, while that of others is disa- 
greeable. Just so in regard to physical appetites, as instanced 
in the craving for alcoholic liquors experienced by inebriates. 
So also in regard to other things not directly cognizable 340 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
through the senses in the same manner as material things 
are. We are conscious, for instance, that some truths 
are agreeable to contemplate, while others are not agree- 
able. 
To illustrate, we feel assured that all men must die. To 
the young and healthy the consideration of this truth is gen- 
erally repulsive, and there can be no doubt that they abso- 
lutely know that this contemplation is repulsive. We also 
know many other things which are matters of experience, 
unless these experiences are delusive. If we suffer pain, we 
feel certain that we are not deluded in regard to that ex- 
perience. 
But very much in our moral natures is colored by our 
beliefs, and our beliefs are often the result of accident of 
birth or education. I suppose that many who are now 
active Christian workers would have been zealous Mussul- 
mans if they had been born in Constantinople and had been 
instructed in the religious doctrines generally taught there. 
Can we then be responsible for our beliefs? I answer 
yes, and no. In some respects we must be responsible, and 
in other respects we cannot help believing what seems to 
be reasonable. But from our very mental constitutions we 
must believe in something. It is a fact, however, that in 
most cases we readily believe what is agreeable to our feel- 
ings, and, on the contrary, our feelings are largely indices of 
the state of our inner natures. Each seems to act on and 
react upon the other. Some take pleasure in contemplating 
the miraculous and inexplicable, while others are much 
better pleased to contemplate truths which are demonstrable. 
Some ridicule believers in miracles and all reports of miracu- 
lous events, and assert that such a thing as a miracle never 
did exist or could have existed. But are such sure that in MIRACLES. 
341 
making such a sweeping assertion they are giving a proper 
meaning to the language they use? 
Until we can truthfully assert that we fully understand all 
the laws of nature we have no right to assert positively that 
what is commonly called a miracle cannot exist. From a 
scientific stand-point we may doubt whether what are gen- 
erally understood to be miraculous events ever occurred; 
and from experience we are justified in disbelieving the 
present working of miracles; and this is as far as we can 
rationally go. When one denies that anything miraculous 
can exist does he not forget that the very existence of both 
mind and matter is inexplicable? Who can explain how 
either of these originally came to be in existence ? To say 
that they always existed and did not originally come into 
existence does not help their position, for it is as easy to 
imagine that they were in some way brought into existence 
as it is to conceive that they could have no beginning. In 
all ages events out of the commonly observed course of 
nature have been regarded as inexplicable, wonderful, 
miraculous; but I suppose that, to an intelligence high 
enough to understand the operations of the laws under 
which these unexplained events have taken place, they would 
seem no more wonderful, i.e., miraculous, than the gather- 
ing of a thunder-cloud does to ordinary observers. 
To assert that such a thing as a miracle never existed is 
going beyond what any human being has any right to assert. 
That designing parties, for the sake of paltry gain, or for the 
sake of gaining undue influence over the minds of credulous 
or deluded followers may, in some cases, pretend to work 
miracles, or be the witnesses of miraculous acts, is in accordance 
with experience; and hence, if a person should now appear 
pretending to work miracles, every unprejudiced person would 342 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIRIES. 
be justified in believing that this pretension is prima facie 
evidence either of insanity or fraud. It is certainly in accord- 
ance with the laws of nature for unprincipled men to lie and 
in many plausible ways, to deceive ; but it is not in accordance 
with experience that good and honest men should lie. Thus 
the testimony of eye and ear witnesses to the works and 
words of Christ, if the men were really good and honest, and 
not themselves deceived, must be received as valid testimony ; 
and this testimony cannot be impeached until it can be shown 
that they either were themselves deceived, or else had some 
selfish motive in reporting untruths. If the above views are 
rejected, the only alternative is to assume that these witnesses 
were bad men, and bent upon deceiving the people. 
The writer has heard intelligent men who, while admitting 
that themiraculous acts of healing reported by the Evangelists 
actually took place, ventured the assertion that Jesus Christ 
understood certain laws of nature not before or since so well 
understood by any other man, and hence He was able to do 
what no man in any succeeding age could do. I suppose 
that such have a right to believe so, if such views seem 
reasonable to them, but Nature herself never deceives her 
proper interpreters. Some are accustomed to treat all reli- 
gious experiences as delusions. But is this treatment philo- 
sophical ? 
Such men as Matthew Arnold, Herbert Spencer, and 
Prof. Tyndall believe that religious feelings are as really a 
part of man’s nature as their physical appetites are. 
Prof. Tyndall writes (p. 542, "Fragments of Science”) : 
"No atheistic reasoning can, I hold, dislodge religion from 
the heart of man. Logic cannot deprive us of life, and 
religion is life to the religious. As an experience of con- 
sciousness, it is perfectly beyond the assaults of logic.” RELIGION v. FORMS. 
343 
In this case Prof. Tyndall is speaking of religion as 
an actual fact, in its substantial and pure sense, and not the 
forms of religion. And is it not to be feared that with too 
many religion consists more of mere forms than of genuine 
substance? The agreement of these forms with religion 
itself may well be questioned, for forms may be only shadows 
of the substance. While one is satisfied with the shadows 
he is little inclined to inquire into the nature of the sub- 
stances by which these shadows are cast. And yet, when 
the reality of these shadows is denied or questioned, many 
think the substances themselves have been attacked or denied. 
Bear in mind that the real substance exists, even if men 
mistake the shadow for the substance. 
When we come to understand the actual truth we are 
often surprised at its simplicity. From its nature, truth 
must appear simple when fully comprehended; for it is 
interwoven with the very laws of nature, and these laws are 
in every respect perfect. That which we know of our 
knowledge is (beyond any cavil) truth. Then the absolute 
truth is not, as some would have us believe, an indistinct 
and nebulous thing which can only be dimly discerned ; but, 
when properly understood, it must appear simple. The 
really important thing to decide is, whether we properly 
comprehend truth. Who has not fairly wondered at the 
simplicity of scientific or moral truths when he has become 
able to clearly understand them ? And the more simple the 
truth seems to us the more likely that we really compre- 
hend it, and thus that our views are correct. Hence, also, 
those who see the truth most clearly and best comprehend it 
can generally explain it in a manner so simple that other 
intelligent men can understand it. Cicero asserted that those 
who think clearly can also write or speak clearly. And it is 344 
ETHICAL SPECULATIONS AND INQUIEIES. 
doubtless generally true that those who so puzzle us in their 
writings with misty or cloudy statements are themselves 
mentally in the clouds or mists. 
Those who attempt to be teachers of truth should be clear 
in their apprehensions of the truth. And yet those who 
appear to be most positive and certain in their own minds 
that they see the truth clearly are not the safest to follow. 
The writer once heard it remarked concerning a very dog- 
matic lecturer, " He seems to know everything but compre- 
hends nothing.” 
The writer has very often been painfully impressed with 
a like idea while reading the writings of that large class of 
writers who deal in positive and rash assertions about matters 
concerning which no certain or positive knowledge has yet 
been obtained or is obtainable through human intelligence 
or intellectual inquiry. And on no subject does it seem 
that there is need of more careful inquiry and conscientious 
reflection and meditation, coupled with a sincere desire to 
understand the actual truth, than the subjects previously 
discussed, viz., the problem of life, and our inherited ten- 
dencies as bearing upon our welfare during the whole of our 
conscious existence (be it longer or shorter), and the limits 
and extent of our moral responsibilities. Where do these 
begin and end? INDEX. 
A. 
B. 
Abiogenesis, 191, 218. 
Acquisitions, 302, 303. 
Africa, Inhabitants of, 88. 
Agassiz, 33, 102, 142, 145, 162, 163, 
175, 176, 181. 
Allah, 148, 281. 
Allen, Prof. Grant, 87, 88. 
Almighty Intelligence, 78. 
Amoeba, 66. 
Amphioxus, 127. 
Animals, Carnivorous, 40. 
Animalculist Theory, 136. 
Anthrax-Bacillus, 220. 
Apes, Man-like, 116, 117, 121, 
125. 
Apes, Young, 184. 
Argyll, Duke of, 5, 68, 76, 91, 168, 
233. 
Argyll, Primeval Man, 57, 173, 
187. 
Aristotle, 217, 246. 
Arnold, Edwin, 153. 
Arnold, Matthew, 342. 
Ascidians, 127. 
Atavism, 288. 
Atoms, 52. 
Atoms, Original, 204. 
Atomic Theory, 205. 
Bacillus-Anthrax, 220. 
Bacteria, 230. 
Baer, K. E. von, 180, 181, 182. 
Bain, Mind and Body, 300, 301, 
302. 
Bastian, Dr. H. C., 2, 19, 22, 218, 
230. 
Beale, Dr. L., 19, 96. 
Beale, Dr., Bioplasm, 60, 63. 
Beale, Dr., Protoplasm, 3. 
Bees, Intelligence of, 30. 
Beginning, was there one? 82. 
Bible, 64, 55. 
Billing, Sidney, 141, 185, 196, 
203. 
Biogeny, Principle of, 179, 180. 
Bioplasm, 60. 
Bird, Lungs of, 26. 
Birds of Prey, 40. 
Birks, Prof., 69, 72. 
Bonnet, 135. 
Brain, 302. 
Brain, Size of, 241, 242, 243. 
Brehm, Alfred E., “The Ways of 
Monkeys,” 137, 138. 
Buddha, 154, 270, 271. 
Buddhism, 153, 259. 
Buddhist, 258, 259, 276. 346 
INDEX, 
Buffon, 191, 192. 
Bunsen’s Battery, 206. 
Byron, Lord, Letter of, 328. 
Byron, Lord, Size of Brain, 242. 
David, 322, 323. 
Dawkins, Prof. Boyd, 93. 
De Bary, 14. 
Decay, 24. 
Decomposition, 65. 
Decrees of Deity, 309, 315. 
Deity, 153, 154, 263, 271. 
Delauney, 245. 
Democritus, 246. 
Denominations, Religious, 333. 
Descent of Man, 266. 
Design in Creation, 38. 
Development Theories, 87. 
Disease-Germs, 200, 201. 
Dog, Scent of, 305. 
Dogs, Sense of Right and Wrong, 
32, 33. 
Dryopithecus, 118. 
Dualistic Views, 70. 
Dumas, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283. 
Dunglison, Dr., 238. 
c. 
Calderwood, Prof., 242. 
Calvinist, 834. 
Carpenter, Dr., 200, 218, 221, 222, 
224. 
Catholics, Roman, 333. 
Cell-growths, 302, 303. 
Chambers, Robert, 147. 
Charbon, 220, 221. 
Chimpanzee, 118. 
Cicero, 38, 249, 343. 
Combustion, 37. 
Communists, Dreams of, 41. 
Communistic Leaders, 258, 261. 
Conceptions, Inborn, 124. 
Confucius, 270. 
Conscience, 268, 296. 
Contagium, Spread of, 231. 
Corpuscles, White, 8, 22. 
Courage, Different Kinds, 331. 
Creator, 176, 262, 279, 283, 317, 
324. 
Creator, Benevolence of, 46. 
Creative Power, 328. 
Creative Theory, 150. 
Cromwell, Oliver, Size of Brain, 
243. 
Crystals, 157, 158, 194, 195. 
Crystallization, 61. 
Cuvier, Size of Brain, 243. 
Czolbe, 75. 
Eagles, 41. 
Edmundson, Rev. George, 96. 
Electricity, 198, 204, 303. 
Elements, Simple, 78, 80, 82. 
Embryo, 182, 183. 
Etherized Matter, 293. 
Evolution, Doctrine of, 825. 
Evolutionist, Position of, 90. 
E. 
F. 
Fairchild, H. L., 17, 26. 
Faith, 330, 331. 
Fallacy, 311. 
Faye, Prof., 239. 
Fermentation, 198. 
Fichte, J. G., 75. 
Fiske, Prof., 106, 126. 
D. 
Darwin, 87, 97, 142, 150, 175. 
Darwin, Descent of Man, 118, 120. 
Darwinian Theory, 151, 186. INDEX 
347 
Forgiveness, 271, 322. 
Fossil Man, 185. 
Fowler, O. S., 243. 
Franklin, Ben., Brain of, 243. 
Free Will, 296, 315, 317. 
Future Life, Belief in, 254. 
Baxley, T. H., 2, 4, 12, 13, 17, 67, 
95, 98, 109, 111, 131, 132, 150, 
191, 210, 211, 242. 
Hybrids, 27. 
Hypotheses, Value of, 94. 
I. 
G. 
Immaculate Conception, 144. 
Immaterial Essences, 202, 293, 294, 
297. 
Immortality, 59, 108, 128, 129, 330. 
Incubation, 25. 
Individual Differences, 216. 
Individuality, 286, 287. 
Inebriation, 45. 
Infant Chimpanzee, 35. 
Infant, Human, 34, 184. 
Infidel Philosophers, 316. 
Infinite Intelligence, 318, 324. 
Intelligence, 81, 140, 149. 
Intelligence, Infant, 189. 
Gambetta, Brain of, 241. 
Generatio iEquivoca, 205. 
Geological Record, 121. 
Geology, 197. 
Germs of Life, 199, 200, 206. 
Germ Theory, 85, 200. 
Giovagnoli, Signor, 257. 
Giraffe, 169, 171. 
God, 148, 194, 276, 334. 
Goethe, 70. 
Gorilla, 118, 120. 
Greeks, Ancient, 247. 
Grindon, Leo H., 193, 194. 
Guyot, A. 11., 89, 193. 
J- 
H. 
Jackson’s Prize Essay, 314. 
Jehovah,l4B, 281. 
Jesus, 149, 264, 265, 269, 270, 271, 
272, 328, 339, 342. 
Haeckel, 11, 31, 54, 70, 71, 84, 96, 
97, 102, 104, 109, 110, 116, 142, 
156, 162, 163, 176, 179, 215. 
Haeckel’s Philosophy, 195. 
Hairy Covering of Man, 122. 
Haller, 135. 
Hammond, Dr. W. A., 243. 
Haussmann, 241. 
Henslow, 157. 
Hermann, J. G. J., 241. 
Hinny, 27. 
Hitchcock, Dr., 152. 
Hume, David, 88, 130, 131, 291, 292, 
318, 319. 
Hunter’s Classification, 29. 
K. 
Kant, 265, 266. 
Kinetic Theory, 52. 
Kosmos, 154. 
L. 
Lamarck, 87, 97, 109, 110, 163,165, 
166. 
Language, Gift of, 34. 
Language, Oldest Written, 247. 
Laplace, 152, 155, 156. 348 
INDEX 
Laurentian Period, 84, 106. 
Lawrence, Dr., 7. 
Le Conte, Joseph, 21. 
Lecky, W. E. 11., 309. 
Leeuwenhoek, 134, 135. 
Leibnitz, 135, 190. 
Letourneau, Dr., Definition of 
Life, 6. 
Liebig, 198. 
Libertine, 306, 307, 308. 
Life, a Mystery, 1. 
Life in Lower Animals, 12. 
Life, Its Uncertainty, 48, 49. 
Life in Trees, 81. 
Life in Vegetables, 12. 
Life Precedes Organization, 6, 7. 
Life, Self-existent, 79. 
Life, Spencer’s Definition, 5. 
Life, What Is It? 1. 
Life, Whence Is It? 56. 
Lister, Prof., Theory of, 218, 219, 
222, 
Littre, 279. 
Lyell, Sir Charles, 87, 88, 120. 
Mill, J. S., 313, 314. 
Miller, Hugh, 167, 254. 
Millennium, Dreams of, 41. 
Mimicries, 15, 16. 
Mind, 74, 284, 285. 
Mind and Body, 300, 301, 302. 
Miracles, 341. 
Missing Links, 126, 127. 
Mitchell, Dr., 93. 
Mivart, St. George, 170. 
Mohammedans, 334, 340. 
Moleschott, 75. 
Monads, 190. 
Monera, 212. 
Monists, 73, 157. 
Monkey, Howling, 298. 
Morse, Prof. E. S., 91, 92. 
Moral Imbecility, 308. 
Moral Laws, 321. 
Moral Natures, 340. 
Moral Responsibility, 277, 296, 305, 
306, 315, 316, 338, 344. 
Moses, 233, 247, 248. 
Mules, 27. 
Murchison, Sir Roger, 167. 
M. 
N. 
Man, His Place in Nature, 108, 113, 
326. 
Man-like Apes, 116, 117, 121, 125. 
Mansell, 255. 
Marsh, Prof. O. C., Nature of Life, 
10, 235. 
Materialistic Philosophy, 70. 
Materialists, 73, 196. 
Matter, Origin of, 79. 
Maudsley, Dr., 62, 295. 
Melancholia, 240. 
Melchizedek, 134. 
Memory, What Is It? 299,300, 301. 
Men and Animals Compared, 30. 
Methodists, 334. 
Napoleon, Size of Brain, 242. 
Nature Asserts Herself, 25. 
Nature, Laws of, 264. 
Nebular Hypothesis, 155, 156. 
Necessity, 306, 318. 
Needham, 191, 192. 
Nirvana, 259. 
Nysten, Researches of, 19. 
o. 
Odors, 305. 
Organic Matter, Its Constituents, 2. 
Organization, 61, 65. INDEX 
349 
Orton, Prof. J., 66, 182. 
Ovulistic Theory, 134, 136. 
Owen, Prof., 207, 208. 
Reymond, Du Bois, 107, 108, 212. 
Robinet, 157. 
S. 
p. 
Sadducees, 334, 335. 
Sap in Trees, 23. 
Savages, 312, 322. 
Shultze, 223. 
Schmid, Rudolf, 205. 
Schmidt, Oscar, 31. 
Schopenhauer, 75. 
Schwann, 223. 
Secondary Causes, 40. 
Self-Existence, 78. 
Sensitive Plant, 11. 
Siam, King of, 83. 
Skeletons, 25. 
Skulls, 93, 94. 
Socrates, 149, 246, 270. 
Soul, 74, 289. 
Sound, 298, 299. 
Space, Unlimited, 297. 
Speculative Belief, 323. 
Spencer, Herbert, 5, 18, 66, 269, 
342. 
Spermatozoid Theory, 134, 135. 
Sphenoidal Angle, 36. 
Spiritual Existence, 59, 312. 
Spiritualistic Philosophy, 70. 
Sponge, 23. 
Spontaneous Generation, 84, 85, 86, 
143, 177, 200, 209, 217, 337. 
Standard, Moral, 262, 263, 268. 
Stoics, 51. 
Sufferings of Men, 47. 
Papillon, Dr., Nature and Life, 8. 
Papillon, Signs of Death, 20. 
Paradise, Where? 121. 
Pasteur, 84, 199, 209, 219, 220, 221, 
224, 278, 280, 281, 282. 
Paul, St., 135, 259. 
Personal Identity, 161, 290. 
Personality, Indivisible, 291. 
Peschel, 114, 118, 184. 
Pharisees, 335. 
Philanthropists, Dreams of, 42. 
Phrenological Examination, 307. 
Physiology, 177. 
Plague, 223. 
Planetary Life, 327. 
Plato, 51, 127, 149, 154, 155, 246, 
270. 
Population, Increase of, 43. 
Potato Rot, 14. 
Protestants, 333. 
Protoplasm, 60, 213, ,214. 
Pyrrhonism, 291. 
Q. 
Quatrefages, 36, 95, 159, 184, 243. 
R. 
Radcliffe, 196. 
Raymond, Dr., 329. 
Redi, Dr., 217. 
Reid, Dr., 290. 
Renan, Ernest, 281. 
Reprobation, 309, 310. 
Reptiles, Limbs of, 17. 
Revelation, 52, 55, 80. 
T. 
Tertiary Mammals, 235 
Thales, 106, 246. 
Theologians, 260. 350 
INDEX 
Thought, How Produced, 294. 
Truth, 332, 336, 337, 338, 339. 
Tyndall, Prof., 13, 198, 199, 203, 
206, 209, 226, 227, 231, 342. 
Vital Porce, 75, 76, 202. 
Voluntary Habits, 304. 
Von Baer, K. E., 180, 181, 182. 
w. 
u. 
Wainwright, Dr., 212, 213. 
Wallace, A. R., 15, 16, 115. 
Water, 64, 81. 
Webster, Daniel, Size of Brain, 
242, 243. 
Unconscious Part of our Nature, 
295. 
Unitarians, 834. 
Universalists, 334. 
Unthinkable, 289, 290. 
V. 
z. 
Vaccination, 221, 222. 
Vibrations of Sound, 298, 299. 
Virchow, 92, 95, 168, 185, 187. 
Zeno, 50, 246. 
Zoospores, 14. 
Zoroaster, 270.