Now that improved steam-engines are lineal descendants of other

steam-engines is absolute nonsense, in any other aspect than that the

structure of one suggested the structure of another to a contriving

mind. We need not affirm this of God; but we may affirm that the plans

of the creative mind constitute the true link of connection between

the different states and developments of inorganic and organic

objects. This is the real meaning of creation by law, as distinguished

from mere chance on the one hand, and arbitrary and capricious

intervention on the other. Both of these extremes are equally

illogical; and it can not be too frequently repeated that divine

revelation avoids both by maintaining with equal firmness the agency

of the Creator, and that agency not capricious, but according to plan

and purpose; embracing not merely the action of the divine mind

itself, but under it of all the forces and material things created.

C.--MODES OF CREATION.

A question often asked, but not easily answered, with reference to the

creation of animals and plants, is--What was its precise method, and

to what extent is such intervention conceivable. This is, it is true,

not a properly scientific question, since science can not inform us of

the act of creation. Nor is it properly a theological one, since

revelation appeals to our faith in the facts, without giving us much

information as to the mode. It can, therefore, be answered only

conjecturally, except in so far as the law or plan of creation can be

inferred from what is known, either from science or revelation, as to

the history of life.

We may, in the first place, assume that law or plan must characterize

creation. The Scriptural idea of it is not reconcilable with the

supposition of a series of arbitrary acts any more than the scientific

idea. The nature of these laws, as disclosed by Palaeontology, has been

already considered in a preceding part of this Appendix. What we may

conjecture as to the nature of the creative act itself, from a

comparison of nature and revelation, may be summed up as follows:

1. If we reduce organized beings to their ultimate organisms--cells or

plastids--and with Spencer and Haeckel suppose these to be farther

divisible into still smaller particles or plastidules, each composed

of several complex particles of albumen or protoplasm, we may suppose

the primary act of creation to consist in the aggregation of molecules

of albuminous matter into such plastidules bearing the same relations,

as "manufactured articles," to the future cell that inorganic

molecules bear to crystals, and possessing within themselves the

potencies of organic forms. This is the nearest approach that we can

make to the primary creative act, and its scientific basis is merely

hypothetical, while revelation gives us no intimation as to any such

constitution of organized matter.

2. The formulae in Genesis, "Let the land produce," and "Let the waters

produce," imply some sort of mediate creation through the agency of

the land and the waters, but of what sort we have no means of knowing.

They include, however, the idea of the origin of the lower and humbler

forms of life from material pre-existing in inorganic nature, and also

the idea of the previous preparation of the land and the waters for

the sustenance of the creatures produced.

3. The expression in the case of man--"out of the dust"--would seem to

intimate that the human body was constituted of merely elementary

matter, without any previous preparation in organic forms. It may,

however, be intended merely to inform us that, while the spirit is in

the image of God, the bodily frame is "of the earth earthy," and in no

respect different in general nature from that of the inferior animals.

4. The Bible indicates some ways in which creatures may be modified or

changed into new species, or may give rise to new forms of life. The

human body is, we are told, capable of transformation into a new or

spiritual body, different in many important respects, and the future

general prevalence of this change is an article of religious faith.

The Bible represents the woman as produced from the man by a species

of fission, not known to us as a natural possibility, except in some

of the lower forms of life. The birth of the Saviour is represented as

having been by parthenogenesis, and if it had pleased God that Jesus

was to remain on earth as the progenitor of a new and higher type of

man to replace that now existing, this might be regarded as the

introduction of a new species. To what extent the Creator may have so

acted on the constitution of organized beings as to produce changes of

this kind we have no means of knowing; but if he have done so, we may

be sure that it has been in accordance with some definite plan or law.

5. We have a right to infer from Scripture that there must be some

creative law which provides for the introduction of species, _de

novo_, from unorganized matter, and which has been or is called into

action by conditions as yet altogether unknown to us, and as yet

inimitable, and therefore in some sense miraculous. Whether we shall

ever by scientific investigation discover the law of this kind of

divine intervention it is impossible to say. That all the theories of

spontaneous generation and derivation hitherto promulgated are but

wild guesses at it is but too evident.

6. Since in inorganic nature we meet with such ultimate facts as atoms

of different kinds and with different properties; and ether of

non-atomic constitution, all of which seem to be necessary to the

existence of the world as it is, we may expect in like manner to find

at the basis of organic structures and phenomena varied kinds of

ultimate organisms and forces, probably much more complicated than

those of inorganic nature. The broad simplicity of existing theories

of derivation and evolution is thus in itself a presumption against

their truth, except as very partial explanations.

7. We have no right to consider the species "after their kinds" of

revelation as coincident with the species recognized by science. Many

of these may be merely races, the production of which in the course of

time and in special circumstances may fall within the powers of

created species, and which may merely be the phases of such species in

time and place. Only the accumulation of vast additional stores of

facts can enable us to have any certain opinion on this point, and

till it is settled the doctrine of derivation must remain purely

hypothetical.

8. The inference of evolutionists that because certain forms of life

succeed each other in geological time, they must have been derived

from each other, has an aspect of truth and simplicity; but the idea

of law or plan in creation suggests that the link of connection may be

of a less direct nature than mere descent with modification. This has

been referred to under a previous head.

9. In the scheme of revelation all the successions and changes of

organized beings, just as much as their introduction at first, belong

to the will and plan of God. Revelation opposes no obstacle to any

scientific investigation of the nature and method of this plan, nor

does it contemplate the idea that any discoveries of this kind in any

way isolate the Creator from his works. Farther, inasmuch as God is

always present in all his works, one part of his procedure can

scarcely be considered an "intervention" any more than another.

10. As an illustration of the hypothetical condition of this subject,

and of the views which may be taken as to its details, I quote from a

memoir of my own certain conclusions with reference to the origin of

the species of land plants which are found in the older geological

formations. The conclusions stated are at the end of a detailed

consideration of these plants and the circumstances of their

occurrence:

"(1.) Some of the forms reckoned as specific in the Devonian and

Carboniferous formations may be really derivative races. There are

indications that such races may have originated in one or more of the

following ways: (_a_) By a natural tendency in synthetic types to

become specialized in the direction of one or other of their

constituent elements. In this way such plants as _Arthrostigma_ and

_Psilophyton_ may have assumed new varietal forms. (_b_) By embryonic

retardation or acceleration,[151] whereby certain species may have had

their maturity advanced or postponed, thus giving them various grades

of perfection in reproduction and complexity of structure. The fact

that so many Erian and Carboniferous plants seem to be on the confines

of the groups of Acrogens and Gymnosperms may be supposed favorable

to such exchanges. (_c_) The contraction and breaking up of floras

which occurred in the Middle Erian and Lower Carboniferous may have

been eminently favorable to the production of such varietal forms as

would result from what has been called the 'struggle for existence.'

(_d_) The elevation of a great expanse of new land at the close of the

Middle Erian and the beginning of the Coal period would, by permitting

the extension of series over wide areas and fertile soils, and by

removing the pressure previously existing, be eminently favorable to

the production of new, and especially of improved, varieties.

"(2.) Whatever importance we may attach to the above supposed causes

of change, we still require to account for the origin of our specific

types. This may forever elude our observation, but we may at least

hope to ascertain the external conditions favorable to their

production. In order to attain even to this it will be necessary to

inquire critically, with reference to every acknowledged species, what

its claims to distinctness are, so that we may be enabled to

distinguish specific types from mere varieties. Having attained to

some certainty in this, we may be prepared to inquire whether the

conditions favorable to the appearance of new varieties were also

those favorable to the creation of new types, or the reverse--whether

these conditions were those of compression or expansion, or to what

extent the appearance of new types may be independent of any external

conditions, other than those absolutely necessary for their existence.

I am not without hope that the further study of fossil plants may

enable us thus to approach to a comprehension of the laws of the

creation, as distinguished from those of the continued existence of

species.

"In the present state of our knowledge we have no good ground either

to limit the number of specific types beyond what a fair study of our

material may warrant, or to infer that such primitive types must

necessarily have been of low grade, or that progress in varietal forms

has always been upward. The occurrence of such an advanced and

specialized type as that of _Syringoxylon_ in the Middle Devonian

should guard us against these errors. The creative process may have

been applicable to the highest as well as to the lowest forms, and

subsequent deviations must have included degradation as well as

elevation. I can conceive nothing more unreasonable than the statement

sometimes made that it is illogical or even absurd to suppose that

highly organized beings could have been produced except by derivation

from previously existing organisms. This is begging the whole question

at issue, depriving science of a noble department of inquiry on which

it has as yet barely entered, and anticipating by unwarranted

assertions conclusions which may perhaps suddenly dawn upon us through

the inspiration of some great intellect, or may for generations to

come baffle the united exertions of all the earnest promoters of

natural science. Our present attitude should not be that of

dogmatists, but that of patient workers content to labor for a harvest

of grand generalizations which may not come till we have passed away,

but which, if we are earnest and true to nature and its Creator, may

reward even some of us."[152]

D.--PRESENT CONDITION OF THEORIES OF LIFE.

One of the most learned and ingenious essays on this subject recently

published[153] states on its first page that all the varieties of

opinion may be summed up under two heads:

"1. Those which require the addition to ordinary matter of an

immaterial or spiritual essence, substance, or power, general or

local, whose presence is the efficient cause of life; and,

"2. Those which attribute the phenomena of life solely to the mode of

combination of the ordinary material elements of which the organism is

composed, without the addition of any such immaterial essence, power,

or force."

It is quite true that physiologists have up to this time argued out

these two alternatives, and that at present the second is probably the

more prevalent. It is however also true that neither includes or can

possibly include the whole truth, and that enlightened theism may

enable us to hold both, or all that is true in either. Undoubtedly we

must hold that a higher spiritual power or Creator is necessary to the

existence of life; but then this is necessary also to the existence of

dead matter and force. So that if physiologists think proper to trace

the whole phenomena of life to material causes, they do not on that

account in any way invalidate the evidence for a spiritual Creator,

nor for a spiritual element in the higher nature of man. Yet so

inconceivably shallow is much of the biological reasoning of the day,

that it is quite common to find physiologists referring all life to

spontaneous and uncaused material agencies, because they have

concluded that the arrangements of matter and force are sufficient to

explain it; and, on the other hand, to find theistic writers accusing

physiology of materialism, if it finds the causes of vital phenomena

in material forces, as if God could be present only in those processes

which we can not understand.

What we really know as to the material basis of life may be summed up

in a few words. Chemically, life is based on compounds of the

albuminous group. These are highly complex in a molecular point of

view, and seem to be formed in nature only where certain structures,

those of the vegetable cell, exist under certain conditions. These

albuminous substances do not necessarily possess vital properties.

They may exist in a dead state just as other substances. Under certain

conditions, however, those of forming part of a so-called living

organism, they present phenomena of mechanical movement and molecular

change, and of transformation or transmission of force, which enable

them to transform themselves into various kinds of tissues, to nourish

these when formed, and to establish a consensus of action between

different parts of the organism; and these properties are vastly

varied in detail according to the kind of organism in which they take

place, and the conditions under which the organism exists. The

actually living matter presents no distinct structure recognizable by

the microscope, and can not be distinguished chemically from ordinary

albumen or protoplasm; but when living it must either exist in some

peculiar and complex molecular arrangement unknown as yet to chemistry

and physics, or must be actuated by some force or form of force called

vital, and not as yet isolated or reduced to known laws or

correlation. It does not concern theism or theology which of these may

eventually prove to be the true view, or if it should be found, which

is quite possible, that there is no real difference between them. In

any case it is certain that in the lower animals, and in the merely

physiological properties of man himself, living matter may act

independently of any higher spiritual nature in the individual, though

of course not independently of the higher power of God, which gave

matter its properties and sustains them in their action. It is farther

certain that in man the spiritual nature dominates and controls the

vital, except when under abnormal conditions the latter unduly gains

the mastery, and quenches altogether the spirit. In the language of

the Bible, the merely vital endowments of the man belong to the flesh

([Greek: sarx]), and to the rational mind or soul ([Greek: psyche]).

The higher nature which man derives directly from God is the spirit

([Greek: pneuma]). Either of these parts of the complex humanity is

capable of life ([Greek: zoe]) and of immortality. Either of them is

capable of being in a state of death, though the import of this

differs in its application to each. In Genesis, the body is composed

of the ordinary earth-materials--the "dust of the ground." The higher

nature is seen in the "shadow and likeness of God," and in the

inbreathing of the Divine Spirit whereby man became a "living soul" in

a higher sense than that in which the animals possess the ordinary

"breath of life." With these views agree the later doctrines of the

Bible as to the "trichotomy" of "body, soul, and spirit" in man, and

of the added influence of the Spirit of God as acting on humanity.

E.--RECENT FACTS AS TO THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN.

Several recent statements as to new facts supposed to prove a

preglacial antiquity for our species have been promulgated in

scientific journals; but so great doubt rests upon them that they do

not invalidate the statement that the earliest human remains belong to

the postglacial age. I may refer to the following:

A very remarkable discovery was made in 1875 by Professor Rutimeyer,

of Basle. In a brown coal deposit of Tertiary, or at least of

"interglacial" age--whatever that may mean in Switzerland--he found

some fragments of wood so interlaced as to resemble wattle or

basket-work. Steenstrup has, however, re-examined the evidence, and

adduces strong reasons for the conclusion that the alleged human

workmanship is really that of beavers.

The Swedish geologists have shown that there is no properly

Palaeolithic age in Scandinavia, and that even the reindeer had

probably disappeared from Denmark and Sweden before their occupation

by man. Some facts, however, seemed to indicate a residence of man in

Sweden before the great post-pliocene subsidence. One of the most

important of these is the celebrated hut of Sodertelge, referred to in

this connection by Lyell. Recent observations have, however, shown

that this hut was really covered by a landslip, and that its age may

not be greater than eight centuries. Torel has recently explained this

in the Proceedings of the Archaeological Congress of Stockholm.

The human bone found in the Victoria Cave at Settle, apparently under

a patch of boulder-clay, has been regarded as a good evidence of the

preglacial origin of man. It has, however, always appeared to readers

of the description as a very doubtful case; and Professor Hughes, of

Cambridge, has recently expressed the opinion that the drift covering

the bone may be merely a "pocket" of that material disengaged from a

cavity in the limestone by the wearing of the cliff.

The same geologist has also shown reason to believe that the supposed

case of the occurrence of palaeolithic implements under boulder-clay

near Brandon, discovered by Mr. Skertchley, and paraded by Geikie as a

demonstration of the "interglacial" antiquity of man, in accordance

with his system of successive glacial periods, is really an error, and

has no foundation in the facts of the case.

Mr. Pengelly has endeavored to maintain the value of the deposit of

stalagmite as a means of establishing dates, in his "Notes of Recent

Notices of the Geology of Devonshire," Part I., 1874; but, I confess,

with little success. He urges, in opposition to the Ingleborough Cave,

that at Cheddar, where, according to him, no appreciable deposit

whatever is taking place on the existing stalagmite. But this, of

course, is evidence not applicable to the case in hand, as in the

Cheddar case no stalagmite crust whatever would be produced. There

are, no doubt, crevices and caves in which old stalagmite is even

being removed or diminished in thickness. He farther asserts that in

Kent's Cave teeth of the cave bear and other extinct animals are found

covered by not more than an inch and a half of stalagmite, and

consequently that if this were deposited at the rate of a quarter of

an inch per annum--the supposed rate on the "Jockey Cap" at

Ingleborough--these animals must have lived in Devonshire only six

years ago, which is, of course, absurd. But he fails to perceive that

this mode of occurrence is quite intelligible on the supposition of a

rapid decrease in the amount of deposition in the later part of the

stalagmite period. He farther refers to the fact that the thicker

masses of stalagmite, which correspond to the places of more active

drip of water, are in the same position in both crusts of stalagmite.

This shows that the sources of water containing bicarbonate of lime

have been the same from the first; but it proves nothing as to the

rate of deposit.

Mr. Pengelly's own estimate of the rate of deposit gives, however, a

length of time which is sufficient to show that there must be error

somewhere in his calculations. He states the aggregate thickness of

the two crusts at twelve feet, and then, assuming a rate of deposit of

0.05 inch in 250 years, or one inch in 5000 years, he arrives at the

conclusion that the whole deposit required 720,000 years for its

formation. He is "willing to suppose" the mechanical deposits to have

accumulated more rapidly; but allowing one fourth of the time for

them, we have nearly a million of years claimed for the residence of

man in Devonshire, which, independently of other considerations, would

push back the Palaeozoic trilobites and corals of that county into the

primitive reign of fire, and which in point of fact amounts to a

_reductio ad absurdum_ of the whole argument.

Professor Hughes[154] refers, as a case of rapid deposition of matter

akin to stalagmite, to the deposit of travertine in the old Roman

aqueduct of the Pont du Gard, near Avignon, where a thickness of

fourteen inches seems to have accumulated in about 800 years. Mr. J.

Carey has given in _Nature_, December 18, 1873, another instance where

a deposit 0.75 inch thick was formed in fifteen years in a lead mine

in Durham. Mr. W. B. Clarke in the same journal gives a case where in

a cave at Brixton, known as Poole's Hole, a deposit one eighth of an

inch in thickness was formed in six months. Such examples show how

unsafe it is to reason as to the rate of deposit in by-gone times, and

when climatal and local conditions may have been very different from

those at present subsisting.

In an able address before the biological section of the British

Association in 1876, Wallace adduces the following considerations as

bearing on these questions; and these are well worthy of attention as

showing that it is the necessities of evolution rather than of

geological facts that demand the assumption of a great antiquity for

man, and induce so many writers to accept any evidence for this,

however doubtful: (1) The great cerebral development of the so-called

Palaeolithic men, which shows no indications of graduating into

inferior races. (2) The great variety of the implements of these

ancient men, and the excellence of their carvings on bone and ivory,

point to a similar conclusion. (3) Man is not related to any existing

species of ape, but in various ways to several different species. (4)

There is an accumulation of evidence to show that the earliest

historical races excelled in many processes in the arts and in many

kinds of culture. He instances the wonderful mechanical and

engineering skill evidenced in the pyramids of Egypt in proof of this.

His conclusion is either that the origin of man by development from

apes must be pushed much farther back than any geologists at present

hold, and I may add far beyond any probable date, or that he must have

originated by some "distinct and higher agency"--which last is no

doubt the true conclusion.

Haeckel, in his recent work, the "History of Creation," sketches the

development of man from a monad, in twenty-two stages; but he has to

admit that stage twenty-first, or that of the "Ape-like man," nowhere

exists, either recent or fossil. He has to assume that this missing

link has perished in the submergence of an imaginary continent of

Lemuria, in the Indian Ocean; and it is instructive to observe that,

after deducting this, his affiliation of the races of men, as

indicated in a map of the distribution of the species, is in the main

very similar to that with which we are familiar in ordinary

collections of maps illustrative of the Bible.

The Post-glacial, Palaeocosmic, or Palaeolithic men of Europe are not

improbably antediluvian; and as to their precise date we know little.

As to postdiluvian man, Canon Rawlinson has recently pointed out[155]

the remarkable convergence of all historic dates toward a time between

2000 to 3000 years B.C., or about the date of the Biblical deluge,

which may reasonably be inferred to have occurred about 3200 B.C. He

gives the following summary of historical origins as ascertained from

the best data, and which accord with the representation of the Bible

that in the time of Abraham the great monarchies of Egypt and the East

were scarcely more powerful than the nomad tribe led by that

patriarch:

Oldest date of Babylon 2300 B.C.

" " Assyria 1500

" " Iran 1500

" " India 1200

" " China 1154

" " Phoenicia 1700

" " Troad 2000

" " Egypt 2760

Sept. date of Deluge 3200

He rejects, of course, the fabulous chronologies of Egypt, China, and

India as mythical, or referring to prehuman and antediluvian periods.

It is to be observed that while these dates place the origins of the

oldest civilized nations at periods considerably subsequent to the

deluge, they do not prevent us from supposing that these nations

commenced their existence wills an advanced civilization borrowed from

antediluvian times, which is indeed a fair conclusion from the

Biblical history, independently of the monumental evidence referred to

by Wallace in a previous paragraph.

The Duke of Argyll, in his excellent little work "Primeval Man," in

which he discusses the arguments in favor of primitive savagery

advanced by Sir J. Lubbock in opposition to the views of Archbishop

Whately in his lecture on the "Origin of Civilization," shows that

there is no necessity to suppose a slow progress of mankind in the

arts extending over indefinite ages; and his argument in this respect

connects itself with the facts as to the high cerebral organization of

Palaeocosmic men referred to above by Wallace. In summing up one

division of his argument, he truly remarks: "If we assume with the

supporters of the savage-theory that man has himself invented all that

he now knows, then the very earliest inventions of our race must have

been the most wonderful of all, and the richest in the fruits they

bore. The man who first discovered the use of fire, and the use of

those grasses which we now know under the name of corn, were

discoverers compared with whom, as regards the value of their ideas to

the world, Faraday and Wheatstone are but the inventors of ingenious

toys. It may possibly be true, as Whately argues, that man never could

have discovered these things without divine instruction. If so, it is

fatal to the savage theory. But it is equally fatal to that theory if

we assume the opposite position, and suppose that the noblest

discoveries ever made by man were made by him in primeval times."

I may add that this is true, however far into antiquity we may stretch

back these primeval times.

Professor E. S. Morse, in his address to the American Association, in

1876, as vice-president, takes as a theme the contributions of

American zoologists to theories of evolution, and closes with those

which refer to what he modestly terms "man's lowly origin." These

contributions he sums up under three heads, as bearing on the

following points: "1. That in his earlier stages he reveals certain

persistent characters of the ape; 2. That the more ancient men reveal

more ape-like features than the present existing men; and, 3. That

certain characteristics pertaining to early men still persist in the

inferior races of men." Under the first head he gives contributions to

the well-known fact that embryonic stages of the human being, like

those of other high types, approximate to forms permanent in lower

types. This is a fact inseparable from the law of reproduction; and as

has been already shown in the text, absolutely without logical

significance as even an analogical argument in favor of evolution.

Under the second and third heads, he refers to cases of exceptional

skulls and bones belonging to idiots and degraded races of men, as

showing tendencies to lower forms, which as a matter of course they

do, though with essential differences still marking them as human; and

he assumes without any proof that these were relatively more common in

primitive times, and that they are cases of reversion to a previous

simian stage, instead of being results of abnormal conditions in the

individual or variety. He sums up these arguments in the following

paragraph:

"If we take into account the rapidly accumulating data of European

naturalists concerning primitive man, with the mass of evidence

presented in these notes, we find an array of facts which irresistibly

point to a common origin with animals directly below us, and these

evidences are found in the massive skulls with coarse ridges for

muscular attachments, the rounding of the base of the nostrils, the

early ossification of the nasal bones, the small cranial capacity in

certain forms, the prominence of the frontal crest, the posterior

position of the _foramen magnum_, the approximation of the temporal

ridges, the lateral flattening of the tibia, the perforation of the

humerus, the tendency of the pelvis to depart from its usual

proportions; and, associated with all these, a rudeness of culture and

the evidence of the manifestation of the coarsest instincts. He must

be blind, indeed, who can not recognize the bearing of such grave and

suggestive modifications."

Yet Professor Morse knows that there is no true specific or even

generic kinship between man and any species of ape; that the phenomena

of idiocy and degeneracy have no real resemblance to those of distinct

specific types; that the resemblances of man to apes, such as they

are, point not in a direct manner to any stock of apes, but in a

desultory way to several; and consequently that, if derived from any

such animals, it must be from some stock altogether unknown to us as

yet, either among recent or fossil animals. Farther, as Cope, himself

an evolutionist, admits, while we can trace the skeletons of Eocene

mammals through several directions of specialization in succeeding

Tertiary times, man presents the phenomenon of an unspecialized

skeleton which can not fairly be connected with any of these lines.

Lastly, his quotation from Fiske, with reference to the supposed

effect of a protracted infancy to develop the moral characteristics of

man, though accompanied with the usual unfair and unreasonable sneer

(which a naturalist like Morse should have been ashamed to quote)

against men "still capable of believing that the human race was

created by miracle in a single day," is the feeblest possible attempt

to bridge over the gap between the spiritual nature of man and the

merely psychical nature of brutes.

It is plain that if American naturalists have done nothing more in

favor of the lowly origin of man than that which Professor Morse has

been able, evidently with much industry and pains, to gather, we need

not for the present abandon our claims to a higher origin. It is

farther significant in connection with this that Professor Huxley, in

his lectures in New York, while resting his case as to the lower

animals mainly on the supposed genealogy of the horse, which has often

been shown to amount to no certain evidence,[156] avoided altogether

the discussion of the origin of man from apes, now obviously

complicated with so many difficulties that both Wallace and Mivart

are staggered by them. Professor Thomas, in his recent lectures,[157]

admits that there is no lower man known than the Australian, and that

there is no known link of connection with the monkeys; and

Haeckel[158] has to admit that the penultimate link in his phylogeny,

the ape-like man, is absolutely unknown.

In Chapter XIII. I have not touched on the question of the absolute

origin of language--this not being necessary to my argument. On this

interesting subject, however, we have, in the naming of the animals by

the first man, recorded in the second chapter of Genesis, not only the

primary truth of his superiority to them, but a farther indication

that the roots of human speech, other than interjectional, lie in

onomatopoeia, and especially in the voices of animals, and that the

gift of speech was not the slow growth of ages, but an endowment of

man from the first, just as much as any of his other powers or

properties. An interesting discussion of this subject will be found in

the concluding chapters of Wilson's "Prehistoric Man," second edition.

Farther, the so-called "tallies" found with the bones of Palaeocosmic

men in European caves, and illustrated in the admirable work of

Christy and Lartet, show that the rudiments even of writing were

already in possession of the oldest race of men known to archaeology or

geology. (See Wilson, _op. cit._, vol. ii., p. 54.)

I have not noticed, except incidentally, the alleged discoveries of

very ancient human remains in America, as they all appear very

problematical. There is, however, some evidence of the coexistence of

man with the mastodon and other postglacial animals in Illinois and

elsewhere.

F.--BEARING OF GLACIAL PERIODS UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF

GENESIS.

Whatever views may be taken as to that period of cold which occurs at

the close of the Tertiary and beginning of the Modern period, it can

not be held to have constituted any such break as to be considered, as

it was at one time, an equivalent for the Biblical chaos. This is

proved by the survival through this period of a very large proportion

of the animals and plants still existing in the northern hemisphere.

The chronological system of animals and plants has been continuous, as

the Bible represents it, since their first appearance on earth.

It is further remarkable that while there is geological evidence of

climates colder than the present in the temperate regions, there is

equally good proof of warmer climates even within the arctic circle

than those of the cold temperate regions at present. It is difficult

to account for these vicissitudes of climate, and much controversy

exists on the subject; but it seems certain that in the earlier

Tertiary and Cretaceous periods, for example, the supplies of heat and

light were so diffused over the earth as to permit the growth of a

temperate vegetation in Greenland, and even in Spitzbergen.

Geologists, however unwillingly, have been obliged to admit this as

one of those great possibilities, altogether unexpected beforehand,

which have been developed in the history of our planet. Various modes

of explaining this succession of cold and warm periods have been

adopted, all more or less hypothetical. Lyell has argued that it may

be explained by a different distribution of land and water and of the

ocean currents. Croll accounts for it by the varying eccentricity of

the earth's orbit, in connection with the precession of the equinoxes.

Evans by a shifting of the axis of rotation of the earth. Drayson,

Bell, Warring, and others, by a change in the inclination of the

earth's axis. Others by the secular diminution of the internal heat of

the earth, and of that of the sun. Others by the supposed recurrence

of periods in which the sun gives more or less heat, or in which the

earth is passing through colder or warmer regions of space. As the

subject is of interest with reference to possible correspondences of

these great summers and winters of the earth with the stages of the

creative work, it may be well to notice shortly the relative merits of

these theories.

(1.) The hypothesis of Croll is one of the most ingenious and

elaborate of the whole; but it has two great defects. One is that the

causes alleged are so uncertain and so complicated that it is

difficult to estimate their real value. Another is that it proves too

much, namely, a regular succession of cold and warm periods throughout

geological time, of which we have no good evidence, and which is on

many grounds improbable.

(2.) That the earth's axis of rotation has continued unchanged

throughout the whole of the geological ages seems proved by the fact

that the principal lines of crumpling and upheaval from the Laurentian

period downward are arranged in great circles of the earth tangent to

the polar circle; and that the lines of deposit of sediment in the

Palaeozoic age are coincident with the present direction of the arctic

currents.

(3.) Astronomers consider it improbable that the obliquity of the

ecliptic has materially changed, and serious differences of opinion

exist as to the effects which a greater or less obliquity would

produce on climate. It seems certain, however, that a less obliquity

would occasion a more uniform distribution of heat and light

throughout the year; and this, co-operating with other causes leading

to a warm climate, might enable a temperate vegetation to approach the

pole more closely than at present.

(4.) That the energy of the sun's radiation and the internal heat of

the earth have been slowly decreasing seems certain; but it is now

generally admitted that these changes are so gradual that little

effect can have been produced by them, except in the older geological

periods, and that they can have no connection with the great glacial

period of the Post-pliocene.

(5.) It is otherwise with the hypothesis that the sun's heat may, like

that of some variable stars, have increased and diminished. There is,

of course, no direct evidence of this, except the small differences

observed in cycles of eleven and fifty-five years from the greater or

less development of sunspots, and the analogy of observed variable

stars. Still it is a possible cause of variations of climate. It might

also aid in accounting for the extraordinary evidences of desert

conditions and desiccation presented by the salt deposits of different

geological periods in temperate latitudes.

(6.) The theory of the passage of the earth through zones of space of

variable temperature is now generally abandoned, as there seems no

reason to believe that such differences exist.

(7.) The theory of Lyell that changes in the distribution of land and

water may, with the possible co-operation of other causes, have

produced the observed diversities of climate, is that which seems best

to meet the conditions presented. It is based on the known properties

of land and water as to the absorption, radiation, and convection of

heat, and on the remarkable diversities of climate in similar

latitudes arising from this cause at present. Farther, it accords with

the known fact that very great changes of level have occurred in

connection with the glacial period. This theory undoubtedly embraces a

true cause, admitted by all geologists, and it dispenses with the

necessity of believing in the recurrence of glacial periods at regular

intervals. It farther accords best with the evidence afforded by

fossils, and especially by fossil plants. It has also the merit of

directing due attention to the diversities of geographical conditions

at different periods, and of dealing with causes of change operating

within the earth itself. The only doubt with respect to it is its

sufficiency to explain the changes which have occurred, and the view

entertained of this will depend very much on the interpretation of the

facts as to the intensity of the last glacial period. If moderate

views can be taken of this, and if means can be found, by a less

obliquity of the ecliptic or otherwise, to furnish a continuous supply

of light in the arctic regions, the difficulties which have been

alleged against it would disappear.

(8.) In connection with former periods of cold and warmth, and with

the existence of temperate and tropical vegetation in polar latitudes,

we should not forget that view which takes into account the probable

effects of different conditions of the atmosphere, and the greater

quantity of carbonic acid present in it, in early geological periods.

This would, of course, best apply to the palaeozoic floras, in so far

as our present knowledge extends; but there may have been similar

conditions in later periods. Dr. Sterry Hunt thus states this

hypothesis:

"The agency of plants in purifying the primitive atmosphere was long

since pointed out by Brongniart, and our great stores of fossil fuel

have been derived from the decomposition, by the ancient vegetation,

of the excess of carbonic acid of the early atmosphere, which through

this agency was exchanged for oxygen gas. In this connection the

vegetation of former periods presents the curious phenomenon of plants

allied to those now growing beneath the tropics flourishing within the

polar circles. Many ingenious hypotheses have been proposed to account

for the warmer climate of earlier times, but are at best

unsatisfactory, and it appears to me that the true solution of the

problem may be found in the constitution of the early atmosphere, when

considered in the light of Dr. Tyndall's beautiful researches on

radiant heat. He has found that the presence of a few hundredths of

carbonic-acid gas in the atmosphere, while offering almost no obstacle

to the passage of the solar rays, would suffice to prevent almost

entirely the loss by radiation of obscure heat, so that the surface of

the land beneath such an atmosphere would become like a vast

orchard-house, in which the conditions of climate necessary to a

luxuriant vegetation would be extended even to the polar regions."

It is obvious that, in the production of complex effects of this kind,

various causes, whether astronomical or connected with the mutations

of the earth's crust, may have co-operated, and probably in all

extreme cases did co-operate.

In any case it is evident that the vicissitudes of climate and the

great pulsations of the crust, which have raised and depressed

portions of the surface and changed the position of its covering of

waters, have been potent agents in the hands of the Creator in

effecting the changes and succession of living beings, which are thus,

as Genesis intimates, children of the waters and of the land, and of

the influences of the heavens. It is also interesting in this

connection to observe that the occurrence of such periods of general

warm climate as that in the Miocene shows that it would have been

possible for man, under certain conditions, to have extended himself

far more widely in his Edenic state than we can conceive of in the

present condition of the earth. The modern world is perhaps even in

this way "cursed" for man's sake.

G.--DR. STERRY HUNT ON THE CHEMISTRY OF THE PRIMEVAL EARTH.

On looking back to the reference to this subject in Chapter V., I

think it may be desirable to present to the reader in some more

definite manner the conditions of a forming world; and I can not do

this in any other way so well as by quoting the words of Dr. Sterry

Hunt, as given in the abstract of his lecture on this subject

delivered before the Royal Institution of London in 1867:

"This hypothesis of the nature of the sun and of the luminous process

going on at its surface is the one lately put forward by Faye, and,

although it has met with opposition, appears to be that which accords

best with our present knowledge of the chemical and physical

conditions of matter, such as we must suppose it to exist in the

condensing gaseous mass which, according to the nebular hypothesis,

should form the centre of our solar system. Taking this, as we have

already done, for granted, it matters little whether we imagine the

different planets to have been successively detached as rings during

the rotation of the primal mass, as is generally conceived, or whether

we admit with Chacornac a process of aggregation or concretion,

operating within the primal nebular mass, resulting in the production

of sun and planets. In either case we come to the conclusion that our

earth must at one time have been in an intensely heated gaseous

condition, such as the sun now presents, self-luminous, and with a

process of condensation going on at first at the surface only, until

by cooling it must have reached the point where the gaseous centre

was exchanged for one of combined and liquefied matter.

"Here commences the chemistry of the earth, to the discussion of which

the foregoing considerations have been only preliminary. So long as

the gaseous condition of the earth lasted, we may suppose the whole

mass to have been homogeneous; but when the temperature became so

reduced that the existence of chemical compounds at the centre became

possible, those which were most stable at the elevated temperature

then prevailing would be first formed. Thus, for example, while

compounds of oxygen with mercury or even with hydrogen could not

exist, oxides of silicon, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, and iron

might be formed and condense in a liquid form at the centre of the

globe. By progressive cooling, still other elements would be removed

from the gaseous mass, which would form the atmosphere of the

non-gaseous nucleus. We may suppose an arrangement of the condensed

matters at the centre according to their respective specific

gravities, and thus the fact that the density of the earth as a whole

is about twice the mean density of the matters which form its solid

surface may be explained. Metallic or metalloidal compounds of

elements, grouped differently from any compounds known to us, and far

more dense, may exist in the centre of the earth.

"The process of combination and cooling having gone on until those

elements which are not volatile in the heat of our ordinary furnaces

were condensed into a liquid form, we may here inquire what would be

the result, upon the mass, of a further reduction of temperature. It

is generally assumed that in the cooling of a liquid globe of mineral

matter, congelation would commence at the surface, as in the case of

water; but water offers an exception to most other liquids, inasmuch

as it is denser in the liquid than in the solid form. Hence ice floats

on water, and freezing water becomes covered with a layer of ice,

which protects the liquid below. With most other matters, however,

and notably with the various mineral and earthy compounds analogous to

those which may be supposed to have formed the fiery-fluid earth,

numerous and careful experiments show that the products of

solidification are much denser than the liquid mass; so that

solidification would have commenced at the centre, whose temperature

would thus be the congealing point of these liquid compounds. The

important researches of Hopkins and Fairbairn on the influence of

pressure in augmenting the melting-point of such compounds as contract

in solidifying are to be considered in this connection.

"It is with the superficial portions of the fused mineral mass of the

globe that we have now to do; since there is no good reason for

supposing that the deeply seated portions have intervened in any

direct manner in the production of the rocks which form the

superficial crust. This, at the time of its first solidification,

presented probably an irregular, diversified surface from the result

of contraction of the congealing mass, which at last formed a liquid

bath of no great depth surrounding the solid nucleus. It is to the

composition of this crust that we must direct our attention, since

therein would be found all the elements (with the exception of such as

were still in the gaseous form) now met with in the known rocks of the

earth. This crust is now everywhere buried beneath its own ruins, and

we can only from chemical considerations attempt to reconstruct it. If

we consider the conditions through which it has passed, and the

chemical affinities which must have come into play, we shall see that

these are just what would now result if the solid land, sea, and air

were made to react upon each other under the influence of intense

heat. To the chemist it is at once evident that from this would result

the conversion of all carbonates, chlorides, and sulphates into

silicates, and the separation of the carbon, chlorine, and sulphur in

the form of acid gases, which, with nitrogen, watery vapor, and a

probable excess of oxygen, would form the dense primeval atmosphere.

The resulting fused mass would contain all the bases as silicates, and

must have much resembled in composition certain furnace-slags or

volcanic glasses. The atmosphere, charged with acid gases, which

surrounded this primitive rock must have been of immense density.

Under the pressure of such a high barometric column, condensation

would take place at a temperature much above the present boiling-point

of water, and the depressed portions of the half-cooled crust would be

flooded with a highly heated solution of hydrochloric acid, whose

action in decomposing the silicates is easily intelligible to the

chemist. The formation of chlorides of the various bases, and the

separation of silica, would go on until the affinities of the acid

were satisfied, and there would be a separation of silica, taking the

form of quartz, and the production of a sea-water holding in solution,

besides the chlorides of sodium, calcium, and magnesium, salts of

aluminium and other metallic bases. The atmosphere, being thus

deprived of its volatile chlorine and sulphur compounds, would

approximate to that of our own time, but differ in its greater amount

of carbonic acid.

"We next enter into the second phase in the action of the atmosphere

upon the earth's crust. This, unlike the first, which was subaqueous,

or operative only on the portion covered with the precipitated water,

is sub-aerial, and consists in the decomposition of the exposed parts

of the primitive crust under the influence of the carbonic acid and

moisture of the air, which convert the complex silicates of the crust

into a silicate of alumina, or clay, while the separated lime,

magnesia, and alkalies, being converted into carbonates, are carried

down into the sea in a state of solution.

"The first effect of these dissolved carbonates would be to

precipitate the dissolved alumina and the heavy metals, after which

would result a decomposition of the chloride of calcium of the

sea-water, resulting in the production of carbonate of lime or

limestone, and chloride of sodium or common salt. This process is one

still going on at the earth's surface, slowly breaking down and

destroying the hardest rocks, and, aided by mechanical processes,

transforming them into clays; although the action, from the

comparative rarity of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, is less

energetic than in earlier times, when the abundance of this gas, and a

higher temperature, favored the chemical decomposition of the rocks.

But now, as then, every clod of clay formed from the decay of a

crystalline rock corresponded to an equivalent of carbonic acid

abstracted from the atmosphere, and equivalents of carbonate of lime

and common salt formed from the chloride of calcium of the

sea-water."[159]

H.--TANNIN AND BHEMAH.

The following synopsis of the instances of the occurrence of the words

_tannin_ and _tan_ will serve to show the propriety of the meaning,

"great reptiles," assigned in the text to the former, as well as to

illustrate the utility in such cases of "comparing Scripture with

Scripture:"

1. TANNIN.

Exod. vii., 9.--Take thy rod and Probably a serpent, though perhaps

cast it before Pharaoh, and it a crocodile.

shall become a _serpent_. (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakon].")

Deut. xxxii., 33.--Their vine is Probably a species of serpent.

the poison of _dragons_. (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakon].")

Job vii., 12.--Am I a sea, or a Michaelis and others think,

_whale_, that thou settest a probably correctly, that the Nile

watch over me. and the crocodile, both objects of

vigilance to the Egyptians, are

intended.

(Septuagint, "[Greek: drakon].")

Psa. lxxiv., 14.--Thou didst Evidently refers to the destruction

divide the sea by thy strength. of the Egyptians in the Red

Thou breakest the heads of the Sea, under emblem of the crocodile.

_dragons_ in the waters. (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakon].")

Psa. xci., 13.--The young lion The association shows that a

and the _dragon_ thou shalt powerful carnivorous animal is

trample under foot. meant.

(Septuagint, "[Greek: drakon].")

Psa. cxlviii., 7.--Praise the Evidently an aquatic creature.

Lord, ye _dragons_ and all deeps. (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakon].")

Isa. xxvii., 1.--He shall slay A large predaceous aquatic animal

the _dragon_ in the midst of the (the crocodile), used here as

sea [river]. an emblem of Egypt.

(Septuagint, "[Greek: drakon].")

Isa. li., 9.--Hath cut Rahab and Same as above.

wounded the _dragon_.

Jer. li., 34.--[Nebuchadnezzar] A large predaceous animal.

hath swallowed me up as a (Septuagint, [Greek: "drakon."])

_dragon_.

Ezek. xxix., 3.--Pharaoh, king In the Hebrew _tanim_ appears by

of Egypt, the great _dragon_ mistake for _tannin_. This is

that lieth in the rivers. clearly the crocodile of the Nile.

Verses 4 and 5 show that it is a

large aquatic animal with _scales_.

(Septuagint, [Greek: "drakon."])

2. TAN.

Psa. xliv., 19.--Thou hast sore Some understand this of shipwreck;

broken us in the place of but, more probably, the

_dragons_. place of dragons is the desert.

(Septuagint, [Greek: "kakosis."])

Isa. xxxiv., 13.--[Bozrah in An animal inhabiting ruins, and

Idumea] shall be a habitation of associated with the ostrich.

_dragons_ and a court of owls [or (Septuagint, [Greek: "seiren."])

ostriches].

Isa. xliii., 20.--The wild Evidently an animal of the dry

beasts shall honor me, deserts.

the _dragons_ and the ostriches, (Septuagint, [Greek: "seiren."])

because I give water in the

wilderness.

Isa. xiii., 22.--Dragons in Represented as inhabiting the

their pleasant palaces. ruins of Babylon, and associated

with wild beasts of the desert.

(Septuagint, [Greek: "xchinos."])

Isa. xxxv., 7.--And the parched An animal making its lair or nest

ground shall become a pool, and in dry, parched places.

the thirsty land springs of (Septuagint, [Greek: "hornis."])

water; in the habitation of

_dragons_, where each lay, shall

be grass with reeds and rushes.

Job xxx., 29.--I am a brother of The association indicates an animal

_dragons_ and a companion of of the desert, and the context

ostriches. that its cry is mournful.

(Septuagint, [Greek: "seiren."])

Jer. ix., 11; x., 22.--I will Same as above. See also Jeremiah

make Jerusalem heaps, a den of xlix., 33; li., 37; and Mal. i., 3,

_dragons_. where the word is in the female

form (_tanoth_).

(Septuagint, [Greek: "drakon"] and

[Greek: "strouthos."])

Lam. iv., 3.--Even the In the Hebrew text the word is

_sea-monsters_ draw out the _tannin_, evidently an error for

breast, they give suck to their _tanim_. The suckling of young, and

young ones. The daughter of my association of ostriches, agree with

people is become cruel, like this. (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakon].")

the ostriches in the wilderness.

Micah i., 8.--I will make a The wailing cry accords with the

wailing like the _dragons_, and view of Gesenius that the jackal is

mourning like the owls meant.

[ostriches]. (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakon].")

We learn from the above comparative view that the _tannin_ is an

aquatic animal of large size, and predaceous, clothed with scales, and

a fit emblem of the monarchies of Egypt and Assyria. In two places it

is possible that some species of serpent is denoted by it. We must

suppose, therefore, that in Genesis i. it denotes large crocodilian

and perhaps serpentiform reptiles. The _tan_ is evidently a small

mammal of the desert.

I omitted to notice in the text a criticism of my explanation of the

word _bhemah_ in "Archaia," made in Archdeacon Pratt's "Scripture and

Science not at Variance" (edition of 1872). He opposes to the meaning

of "herbivorous animals" which I have sought to establish, two

exceptional passages. In one of these, Deut. xxviii., 26, the word is

used in its most general sense for all beasts, which the context shows

can not be its meaning in Gen. i. In the other, Prov. xxx., 30, he

says it is applied to the lion. The actual expression used, however,

merely implies that the lion is "mighty among _bhemah_," the

comparison being probably between the strength of the lion and that of

oxen, antelopes, and other strong and active creatures. It does not

affirm that the lion is one of the _bhemah_. While I have every

respect for the erudition of Archdeacon Pratt, and highly value his

book, I must regard this objection as an example of a style of

biblical exposition much to be deprecated, though too often employed.

I.--ANCIENT MYTHOLOGIES.

The current views respecting the relations of ancient mythologies with

each other and with the Bible have been continually shifting and

oscillating between extremes. The latest and at present most popular

of these extreme views is that so well expounded by Dr. Max Mueller in

his various essays on these subjects, and which traces at least the

Indo-European theogony to a mere personification of natural objects.

The views given in the text are those which to the author appear alone

compatible with the Bible, and with the relations of Semitic and Aryan

theology; but, as the subject is generally regarded from a quite

different point of view, a little further explanation may be

necessary.

1. According to the Bible, spiritual monotheism is the primitive faith

of man, and with this it ranks the doctrine of a malignant spirit or

being opposed to God, and of a primitive state of perfection and

happiness. It is scarcely necessary to say that these doctrines may be

found as sub-strata in all the ancient theologies.

2. In the Hebrew theology the fall introduces the new doctrine of a

mediator or deliverer, human and divine, and an external symbolism,

that of the cherubic forms, composite figures made up of parts of the

man, the lion, the ox, and the eagle. These forms are referred back to

Eden, where they are manifestly the emblems of the perfections of the

Deity, lost to man by the fall, and now opposed to his entrance into

Eden and access to the tree of life, the symbol of his immortal

happiness. Subsequently the cherubim are the visible indications of

the presence of God in the tabernacle and temple; and in the

Apocalypse they reappear as emblems of the Divine perfections, as

reflected in the character of man redeemed. The cherubim, as guardians

of the sacred tree, and of sacred places in general, appear in the

worship of the Assyrians and Egyptians, as the winged lions and bulls

of the former, and the sphinx of the latter. They can also be

recognized in the sepulchral monuments of Greek Asia and of Etruria.

Farther, it was evidently an easy step to proceed from these cherubic

figures to the adoration of sacred animals. But the cherubic emblems

were connected with the idea of a coming Redeemer, and this was with

equal ease perverted into hero-worship. Every great conqueror,

inventor, or reformer was thus recognized as in some sense the "coming

man," just as Eve supposed she saw him in her first-born. In addition

to this, the sacredness of the first mother as the mother of the

promised seed of the woman, led to the introduction of female deities.

3. The earliest ecclesiastical system was the patriarchal, and this

also admitted of corruption into idolatry. The great patriarch,

venerable by age and wisdom, when he left this earth for the spirit

world, was supposed there, in the presence of God, to be the special

guardian of his children on earth. Some of the gods of Egypt and of

Greece were obviously of this character, and in China and Polynesia we

see at this day this kind of idolatry in a condition of active

vitality.

4. As stated in the text, the mythology of Egypt and Greece bears

evident marks of having personified certain cosmological facts akin to

those of the Hebrew narrative of creation. In this way ancient

idolators disposed of the prehistoric and pre-Adamite world, changing

it into a period of gods and demigods. This is very apparent in the

remarkable Assyrian Genesis recovered by the late George Smith from

the clay tablets found in the ruined palace of Assurbanipal.

5. In all rude and imaginative nations, which have lost the distinct

idea of the one God, the Creator, nature becomes more or less a

source of superstitions. Its grand and more rare phenomena of

volcanoes, earthquakes, thunder-storms, eclipses, become supernatural

portents; and as the idea of power associates itself with them, they

are personified as actual agents and become gods. In like manner, the

more constant and useful objects and processes of nature become

personified as beneficent deities. This may be, to a great extent, the

character of the Aryan theology; but, except where all ideas of

primitive religion and traditions of early history have been lost, it

can not be the whole of the religion of any people. The Bible

negatively recognizes this source of idolatry, in so constantly

referring all natural phenomena to the divine decree. In connection

with this, it is worthy of remark that rude man tends to venerate the

new animal forms of strange lands. Something of this kind has probably

led some of the American Indians to give a sort of divine honor to the

bear. It was in Egypt that man first became familiar with the strange

and gigantic fauna of Africa, whose effect on his mind in primitive

times we may gather from the book of Job. In Egypt, consequently,

there must have been a strong natural tendency to the adoration of

animals.

The above origins of idolatry and mythology, as stated or implied in

the Bible, of course assume that the Semitic monotheistic religion is

the primitive one. The first deviations from it probably originated in

the family of Ham. A city of the Rephaim of Bashan was in the days of

Abraham named after Ashtoreth Karnaim--the two-horned Astarte, a

female divinity and prototype of Diana, and perhaps an historic

personage, in whom both the moon and the domestic ox were rendered

objects of worship. This is the earliest Bible notice of

idolatry.[160] In Egypt a mythology of complex diversity existed at

least as far back. We must remember, however, that Egypt is Cush as

well as Mizraim, and its idolatry is probably to be traced, in the

first instance, to the Nimrodic empire, from which, as from a common

centre, certain new and irreligious ideas seem to have been propagated

among all the branches of the human family. It is quite probable that

the correspondences between Egyptian, Greek, and Hindoo myths go back

as far as to the time when the first despotism was erected on the

plain of Shinar, and when able but ungodly men set themselves to erect

new political and social institutions on the ruins of all that their

fathers had held sacred. In addition to this, the mythology and

language of the Aryans alike bear the impress of the innovating and

restless spirit of the sons of Japhet.

I have stated the above propositions to show that the Bible affords a

rational and connected theory of the origin of the false religions of

antiquity; and to suggest as inquiries in relation to every form of

mythology--how much of it is primitive monotheism, how much

cherub-worship, how much hero-worship, how much ancestor-worship, how

much distorted cosmogony, how much pure idealism and superstition,

since all these are usually present. I may be allowed further to

remind the reader how much evidence we have, even in modern times, of

the strong tendency of the human mind to fall into one or another of

these forms of idolatry; and to ask him to reflect that really the

only effectual conservative element is that of revelation. How strong

an argument is this for the necessity to man of an inspired rule of

religious faith.

[The above note was in substance contained in the Appendix to

"Archaia" in 1860, and its correctness has, I think, been confirmed by

subsequent discoveries.]

K.--ASSYRIAN AND EGYPTIAN TEXTS.

Progress is continually being made in the decipherment and publication

of these, and new facts are coming to light in consequence as to the

religions of the early postdiluvian period.

According to the late George Smith and to Mr. Sayce, in their

contributions to Bagster's "Records of the Past," the earliest

monumental history of Babylonia reveals two races, the Akkadian or

Urdu, a Turanian race, with an agglutinate language of the Finnish or

Tartar type, and the Sumir or Keen-gi, believed to be Shemitic. The

race of Akkad seems to have invented the cuneiform writing at a very

early period, and it no doubt represents the primitive Cushites of the

Bible, to whom is attributed the empire of Nimrod, whose first cities

were Babel and Erech and Akkad and Calneh. Very ancient inscriptions

of this early Chaldean or Cushite race exist, probably earlier than

the time of Abraham. That of king Urukh, who is called "a very ancient

king," on an inscription of Nabonadius, 555 B.C., represents himself

as building temples to several gods and goddesses, so that in his time

there was already a developed polytheism, unless, indeed, he was

himself the inventor or introducer of much of it. Yet one can gather

from the probably contemporary Creation and Deluge tablets translated

by Mr. Smith, that a Supreme God was still recognized, and that the

subordinate deities, though their worship was probably gaining in

importance, were still only local and created beings. Yet it was

undoubtedly from this embryo idolatry that Abraham dissented, and was

thus led to leave his native land.

In like manner, in the early Egyptian Hymn to Amen Ra, translated by

Mr. Goodwin, though we have the gods mentioned, they are inferior

beings, and not higher in position than the angels of the Old

Testament, while Ra himself is "Lord of Eternity, Maker Everlasting,"

and is praised as

"Chief creator of the whole earth,

Supporter of affairs above every god,

In whose goodness the gods rejoice."

Thus, although there can be little doubt that Ra was a sun-god, there

can be as little that he is the Il or El of the Shemitic peoples, and

that his worship represents that of the one God, the Creator. It seems

probable also that there was an esoteric doctrine of this kind among

the priests and the educated, however gross the polytheism of the

vulgar. In short, the state of things in Assyria and Egypt was not

dissimilar from that prevailing at this day in India, where learned

men may fall back upon the ancient Vedas, and maintain that their

religion is monotheistic, while the common people worship innumerable

gods. All this points to a primitive monotheism, just as the peculiar

forms of adoration given to saints and the Virgin Mary in the Greek

and Roman churches historically imply a primitive Christianity on

which these newer beliefs and rites have been engrafted.

L.--SPECIES AND VARIETAL FORMS WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNITY OF

MAN.

In the concluding chapters of "Archaia" the nature of species, as

distinguished from varieties, was discussed, and specially applied to

the varieties and races of man. This discussion has been omitted from

the text of the present work; but, in an abridged form, is introduced

here, with especial reference to those more recent views of this

subject now prevalent in consequence of the growth of the philosophy

of evolution; but which I feel convinced must, with the progress of

science, return nearer to the opinions held by me in 1860, and

summarized below.

We can determine species only by the comparison of individuals. If all

these agree in all their characters except those appertaining to sex,

age, and other conditions of the individual merely, we say that they

belong to the same species. If all species were invariable to this

extent, there could be no practical difficulty, except that of

obtaining specimens for comparison. But in the case of very many

species there are minor differences, not sufficient to establish

specific diversity, but to suggest its possibility; and in such cases

there is often great liability to error. In cases of this kind we have

principally two criteria: first, the nature and amount of the

differences; secondly, their shading gradually into each other, or the

contrary. Under the first of these we inquire--Are they no greater in

amount than those which may be observed in individuals of the same

parentage? Are they no greater than those which occur in other species

of similar structure or habits? Do they occur in points known in

other species to be readily variable, or in points that usually remain

unchanged? Are none of them constant in the one supposed species, and

constantly absent in the other? Under the second we ask--Are the

individuals presenting these differences connected together by others

showing a series of gradations uniting the extremes by minute degrees

of difference? If we can answer these questions--or such of them as we

have the means of answering--in the affirmative, we have no hesitation

in referring all to the same species. If obliged to answer all or many

in the negative, we must at least hesitate in the identification; and

if the material is abundant, and the distinguishing characters clear

and well defined, we conclude that there is a specific difference.

Species determined in this way must possess certain general properties

in common:

1. Their individuals must fall within a certain range of uniform

characters, wider or narrower in the case of different species.

2. The intervals between species must be distinctly marked, and not

slurred over by intermediate gradations.

3. The specific characters must be invariably transmitted from

generation to generation, so that they remain equally distinct in

their limits if traced backward or forward in time, in so far as our

observation may extend.

4. Within the limits of the species there is more or less liability to

variation; and this, though perhaps developed by external

circumstances, is really inherent in the species, and must necessarily

form a part of its proper description.

5. There is also a physiological distinction between species, namely,

that the individuals are sterile with one another, whereas this does

not apply to varieties; and though Darwin has labored to break down

this distinction by insisting on rare exceptional cases, and

suggesting many supposed ways by which varieties of the same species

might possibly attain to this kind of distinctness, the difference

still remains as a fact in nature; though one not readily available in

practically distinguishing species.

These general properties of species will, I think, be admitted by all

naturalists as based on nature, and absolutely necessary to the

existence of natural history as a science, independently of any

hypotheses as to the possible changes of specific forms in the lapse

of time. I now proceed to give a similar summary of the laws of the

varieties which may exist--always be it observed, within the limits of

the species.

1. The limits of variation are very different in different species.

There are many in which no well-marked variations have been observed.

There are others in which the variations are so marked that they have

been divided, even by skilful naturalists, into distinct species or

even genera. I do not here refer to differences of age and sex. These

in many animals are so great that nothing but actual knowledge of the

relation that subsists would prevent the individuals from being

entirely separated from one another. I refer merely to the varieties

that exist in adults of the same sex, including, however, those that

depend on arrest of development, and thus make the adult of one

variety resemble in some respects the young of another; as, for

instance, in the hornless oxen, and beardless individuals among men.

If we inquire as to the causes on which the greater or less

disposition to vary depends, we must, in the first place, confess our

ignorance, by saying that it appears to be in a great measure

constitutional, or dependent on minute and as yet not distinctly

appreciable structural, physiological, and psychical characters.

Darwin states that Pallas long ago suggested, from the known facts

that the seeds of hybrid plants and grafted trees are very variable,

the theory that mixture of breeds tends to produce variability; but

Darwin does not seem to attach much importance to this, and admits our

inability to explain the origin of these differences.[161] We know,

however, certain properties of species that are always or usually

connected with great liability to variation. The principal of these

are the following: 1. The liability to vary is, in many cases, not

merely a specific peculiarity; it is often general in the members of a

genus or family. Thus the cats, as a family, are little prone to vary;

the wolves and foxes very much so. 2. Species that are very widely

distributed over the earth's surface are usually very variable. In

this case the capacity to vary probably adapts the creature to a great

variety of circumstances, and so enables it to be widely distributed.

It must be observed here that hardiness and variability of

constitution are more important to extensive distribution than mere

locomotive powers, for matters have evidently been so arranged in

nature that, where the habitat is suitable, colonists will find their

way to it, even in the face of difficulties almost insurmountable. 3.

Constitutional liability to vary is sometimes connected with or

dependent on extreme simplicity of structure, in other cases on a high

degree of intelligence and consequent adaptation to various modes of

subsistence. Those minute, simply organized, and very variable

creatures, the Foraminifera, exemplify the first of these apparent

causes; the crafty wolves furnish examples of the second. 4.

Susceptibility to variation is farther modified by the greater or less

adaptability of the digestive and locomotive organs to varied kinds of

food and habitat. The monkeys, intelligent, imitative, and active, are

nevertheless very limited in range and variability, because they can

comfortably subsist only in forests, and in the warmer regions of the

earth. The hog, more sluggish and less intelligent, has an omnivorous

appetite, and no very special requirements of habitat, and so can vary

greatly and extend over a large portion of the earth. Farther, in

connection with this subject it may be observed that the conditions

favorable to variation are also in the case of the higher animals

favorable to domestication, while it may also be affirmed that, other

things being equal, animals in a domesticated state are much more

liable to vary than those in a wild state, and this independent of

intentional selection. Darwin admits this, and gives many examples of

it.

2. Varieties may originate in two different ways. In the case of wild

animals it is generally supposed that they are gradually induced by

the slow operation of external influences; but it is certain that in

domesticated animals they often appear suddenly and unexpectedly, and

are not on that account at all less permanent. A large proportion of

our breeds of domestic animals appear to originate in this way. A very

remarkable instance is that of the "Niata" cattle of the Banda

Orientale, described by Darwin in his "Voyage of a Naturalist." These

cattle are believed to have originated about a century ago among the

Indians to the south of the La Plata, and the breed propagates itself

with great constancy. "They appear," says Darwin, "externally to hold

nearly the same relation to other cattle which bull-dogs hold to other

dogs. Their forehead is very short and broad, with the nasal end

turned up, and the upper lip much drawn back; their lower jaws project

outward; when walking they carry their heads low on a short neck, and

their hinder legs are rather longer compared with the front legs than

is usual." It is farther remarkable in respect to this breed that it

is, from its conformation of head, less adapted to the severe droughts

of those regions than the ordinary cattle, and can not, therefore, be

regarded as an adaptation to circumstances. In his later work on

animals under domestication, Darwin gives many other instances of the

origination of breeds of cattle and other animals in this abrupt and

mysterious manner, and without any selection, though he strongly leans

to the conclusion that slow and gradual changes are the most frequent

causes of variation. It is to be observed, however, that very slow

changes are in more danger of being accidentally diverted or

obliterated by crossing, and that the first stages of an incipient

change may be too unimportant to be permanent.

Many writers on the subject of the Unity of Man assume that any marked

variety must require a long time for its production. Our experience in

the case of the domestic animals teaches the reverse of this view; a

very important point too often overlooked.

3. The duration or permanence of varieties is very different. Some

return at once to the normal type when the causes of change are

removed. Others perpetuate themselves nearly as invariably as species,

and are named races. It is these races only that we are likely to

mistake for true species, since here we have that permanent

reproduction which is one of the characteristics of the species. The

race, however, wants the other characteristics of species as above

stated; and it differs essentially in having branched from a primitive

species, and in not having an independent origin. It is quite evident

that in the absence of historical evidence we must be very likely to

err by supposing races to have really originated in distinct

"primordial forms." Such error is especially likely to arise if we

overlook the fact of the sudden origination of such races, and their

great permanency if kept distinct. There are two facts which deserve

especial notice, as removing some of the difficulty in such cases. One

is that well-marked races usually originate only in domesticated

animals, or in wild animals which, owing to accidental circumstances,

are placed in abnormal circumstances. Another is, that there always

remains a tendency to return, in favorable circumstances, to the

original type. This tendency to reversion is much underrated by Darwin

and his followers; yet they constantly recur to it as a means of

proving possible derivation, and their writings abound in examples of

it. Perhaps the most remarkable of these reversions are those which

occur when varieties destitute of all the markings of the original

stock are crossed and reproduce those markings, which Darwin shows to

occur in pigeons and domestic fowls. The domesticated races usually

require a certain amount of care to preserve them in a state of

purity, both on this account and on account of the readiness with

which they intermix with other varieties of the same species. Many

very interesting facts in illustration of these points might be

adduced. The domesticated hog differs in many important characters

from the wild boar. In South America and the West Indies it has

returned, in three centuries or less, to its original form.[162] The

horse is probably not known in a state originally wild, but it has run

wild in America and in Siberia. In the prairies of North America,

according to Catlin[163] they still show great varieties of color. The

same is the case in Sable Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia[164]

where herds of wild horses have existed since an early period in the

settlement of America. In South America and Siberia they have assumed

a uniform chestnut or bay color. In the plains of Western America they

retain the dimensions and vigor of the better breeds of domesticated

horses. In Sable Island they have already degenerated to the level of

Highland ponies; but in all countries where they have run wild, the

elongated and arched head, high shoulders, straight back, and other

structural characters probably of the original wild horse, have

appeared. We also learn from such instances that, while races among

domesticated animals may appear suddenly, they revert to the original

type, when unmixed, comparatively slowly; and this especially when the

variation is in the nature of degeneracy.

4. Some characters are more subject to variation than others. In the

higher animals variation takes place very readily in the color and

texture of the skin and its appendages. This, from its direct relation

to the external world, and ready sympathy with the condition of the

digestive organs, might be expected to take the lead. In those

domesticated animals which are little liable to vary in other

respects, as the cat and duck, the color very readily changes. Next

may be placed the stature and external proportions, and the form of

such appendages as the external ear and tail. All these characters are

very variable in domestic animals. Next we may place the form of the

skull, which, though little variable in the wild state, is nearly

always changed by domestication. Psychological functions, as the

so-called instincts of animals, are also very liable to change, and to

have these changes perpetuated in races. Very remarkable instances of

this have been collected by Sir C. Lyell[165] and Dr. Prichard.

Lastly, important physiological characters, as the period of

gestation, etc., and the structure of the internal organs connected

with the functions of nutrition, respiration, etc., are little liable

to change, and remain unaffected by the most extreme variations in

other points; and it is, no doubt, in these more essential and

internal parts that the tendency survives to return under favorable

circumstances to the original type.

5. Varieties or races of the same species are fully reproductive with

each other, which is not the case with true species. Mutual sterility

of varieties of the same species is an exceptional peculiarity, if it

ever truly exist; and, on the other hand, the cross-fertilization of

varieties of the same species, whether in animals or plants, tends to

vigorous life, and also to return to the primitive or average type. On

the other hand, intermixture of distinct species rarely, if ever,

occurs freely in nature. It is generally a result of artificial

contrivance. Again, hybrids produced from species known to be distinct

are either wholly barren, or barren _inter se_, reproducing only with

one of the original stocks, and rapidly returning to it; or if ever

fertile _inter se_, which is somewhat doubtful, rapidly run out. It

has been maintained by Pallas and others, and Darwin leans to this

idea, that there is still another possibility, namely, that of the

perfect and continued fertility of such mixed races, especially after

long domestication; but their proofs are derived principally from the

intermixture of the races of dogs and of poultry, which are cases

actually in dispute at present, as to the original unity or diversity

of the so-called species.

If we apply these considerations to man, our conclusion must be that,

even in his bodily frame, he is not merely specifically but ordinally

distinct from other animals, and that the differences between races of

men are varietal rather than specific. This view is confirmed by the

following facts:

1. The case of man is not that of a wild animal; and it presents many

points of difference even from the case of the domesticated lower

animals. According to the Bible history, man was originally fitted to

subsist on fruits, to inhabit a temperate climate, and to be exempt

from the necessity of destroying or contending with other animals.

This view unquestionably accords very well with his organization. He

still subsists principally on vegetable food, is most numerous in the

warmer regions of the earth; and, when so subsisting in these regions,

is naturally peaceful and timid. On the whole, however, his habits of

life are artificial--more so than those of any domesticated animal. He

is, therefore, in the conditions most favorable to variation. Again,

man possesses more than merely animal instincts. His mental powers

permit him to devise means of locomotion, of protection, of

subsistence, far superior to those of any mere animal; and his

dominant will, insatiable in its desires, bends the bodily frame to

uses and exposes it to external influences more various than any

inferior animal can dream of. Man is also more educable and plastic in

his constitution than other animals, owing both to his being less

hemmed in by unchanging instincts, and to his physical frame being

less restricted in its adaptations. If a single species, he is also

more widely distributed than any other; and there are even single

races which exceed in their extent of distribution nearly all the

inferior animals. Nor is there anything in his structure specially to

limit him to plains, or hills, or forests, or coasts, or inland

regions. All the causes which we can suppose likely to produce

variation thus meet in man, who is himself the producer of most of the

distinct races that we observe in the lower animals. If, therefore, we

condescend to compare man with these creatures, it must be under

protest that what we learn from them must be understood with reference

to his greater capabilities.

2. The races of men are deficient in some of the essential characters

of species. It is true that they are reproduced with considerable

permanency; though a great many cases of spontaneous change, of

atavism, or return to the character of progenitors, and of slow

variation under changed conditions, have been recorded. But the most

manifest deficiency in true specific characters is in the invariable

shading-off of one race into another, and in the entire failure of

those who maintain the distinction of species in the attempt

accurately to define their number and limits. The characters run into

each other in such a manner that no natural arrangement based on the

whole can apparently be arrived at; and when one particular ground is

taken, as color, or shape of skull, the so-called species have still

no distinct limits; and all the arrangements formed differ from each

other, and from the deductions of philology and history. Thus, from

the division of Virey into two species, on the entirely arbitrary

ground of facial angle, to that of Bory de St. Vincent into fifteen,

we have a great number and variety of distinctions, all incapable of

zoological definition; or, if capable of definition, eminently

unnatural. There are, in short, no missing links between the varieties

of men corresponding to that which obtains between man and lower

animals.

3. The races of men differ in those points in which the higher animals

usually vary with the greatest facility. The physical characters

chiefly relied on have been color, character of hair, and form of

skull, together with diversities in stature and general proportion.

These are precisely the points in which our domestic races are most

prone to vary. The manner in which these characters differ in the

races of men may be aptly illustrated by a few examples of the

arrangements to which they lead.

Dr. Pickering, of the U. S. Exploring Expedition[166]--who does not,

however, commit himself to any specific distinctions--has arranged the

various races of men on the very simple and obvious ground of color.

He obtains in this way four races--the White, the Brown, the

Blackish-brown, the Black. The distinction is easy; but it divides

races historically, philologically, and structurally alike; and unites

those which, on other grounds, would be separated. The white race

includes the Hamite Abyssinian, the Semitic Arabian, the Japhetic

Greek. The Ethiopian or Berber is separated from the cognate

Abyssinian, and the dark Hindoo from the paler races speaking like him

tongues allied to the Sanscrit. The Papuan, on the other hand, takes

his place with the Hindoo; while the allied Australian must be content

to rank with the Negro; and the Hottentot is promoted to a place

beside the Malay. It is unnecessary to pursue any farther the

arrangement of this painstaking and conscientious inquirer. It

conclusively demonstrates that the color of the varieties of the human

race must be arbitrary and accidental, and altogether independent of

unity or diversity of origin.

Some use has been made, by the advocates of diversity of species, of

the quality of the hair in the different races. That of the Negro is

said to be flat in its cross section--in this respect approaching to

wool; that of the European is oval; and that of the Mongolian and

American round.[167] The subject has as yet been very imperfectly

investigated; but its indications point to no greater variety than

that which occurs in many domesticated animals--as, for instance, the

hog and sheep. Nay, Dr. Carpenter states[168]--and the writer has

satisfied himself of the fact by his own observation--that it does not

exceed the differences in the hair from different parts of the body of

the same individual. The human hair, like that of mammals in general,

consists of three tissues: an outer cortical layer, marked by

transverse striae, having in man the aspect of delicate lines, but in

many other animals assuming the character of distinct joints or

prominent serrations; a layer of elongated, fibrous cells, to which

the hair owes most of its tenacity; and an inner cylinder of rounded

cells. In the proportionate development of these several parts, in the

quantity of coloring matter present, and in the transverse section,

the human hair differs very considerably in different parts of the

body. It also differs very markedly in individuals of different

complexions. Similar but not greater differences obtain in the hair of

the scalp in different races; but the flatness of the Negro's hair

connects itself inseparably with the oval of the hair of the ordinary

European, and this with the round observed in some other races. It

generally holds that curled and frizzled hair is flatter than that

which is lank and straight; but this is not constant, for I have found

that the waved or frizzled hair of the New Hebrideans, intermediate

apparently between the Polynesians and Papuans, is nearly circular in

outline, and differs from European hair mainly in the greater

development of the fibrous structure and the intensity of the color.

Large series of comparisons are required; but those already made point

to variation rather than specific difference. Some facts also appear

to indicate very marked differences as occurring in the same race from

constant exposure or habitual covering; and also the occasional

appearance of the most abnormal forms, without apparent cause, in

individuals. The differences depending on greater or less abundance or

vigor of growth of the hair are obviously altogether trivial, when

compared with such examples as the hairless dogs of Chili and hairless

cattle of Brazil, or even with the differences in this respect

observed in individuals of the same race of men.