Eocene (dawn of recent life), consisting of sandstone, limestone,
sands, clays, marls, coral rags, and lignites, and containing fossil
equine forms, birds, reptiles, bats, and marsupials.
Meiocene (less recent life), consisting of arctic coal, limestone,
sands, clays, and lignites, and containing fossil apes and marsupials.
Pleiocene (more recent life), the white and red crags of Britain,
containing fossil apes, bears, and hyenas.
Pleistocene (most recent life), consisting of glacial accumulations of
all kinds of earths, and containing fossil remains of apes and men,
and implements of stone, bone, and horn, and later still of remains of
lake-dwellings, shell-mounds, etc.
These different layers of stratified rocks have not always kept
their proper positions with regard to each other in the order they
were originally laid down; but, owing to volcanic eruption, have
frequently intruded upon each other, so that, at first sight, it would
sometimes appear as though the regular order of deposition had not
been adhered to; but that this is not so has been made apparent by
careful investigation over large areas. The depth of the Secondary and
Tertiary is from twenty to twenty-five miles. We see, therefore, that
the first life-forms made their appearance as marine organisms in the
Laurentian, or first stratified rock period; but whether the animal
or the vegetable form first appeared, or whether both were developed
from one primordial organism, it is impossible at present to say. In
each successive layer of rock we meet with fossil remains of animal
and vegetable life, which steadily develop into more highly organised
forms, through the different periods, until, at last, they assume the
exquisite phases we now behold around us. The vegetable kingdom was the
first to exist upon the land, the first land-plant being found in the
fossil state in the Cambrian layer, at the same time that marine animal
life was assuming the forms of worms, shell-fish, and star-fishes. In
the Silurian period the first vertebrate animals made their appearance
in the form of lowly-organised fishes, from which, in the Carboniferous
age, developed amphibious creatures, the first breathing animals,
living both in and out of water, and the progenitors of the large
kingdom of land animals, including man.
Now, if we take the pedigree of man, as arranged by Darwin and Haeckel,
and compare it with this geological tree, we shall see how perfectly
the sister sciences of Paleontology and Biology corroborate each other.
The first form of life, says Haeckel, was the Moneron, a structureless
albuminous atom of bioplasm, not even possessing the structure of
a mere cell. We place this, which belongs to the primitive order
Protozoa, in the Laurentian period, where we are told by geologists
that fossil foraminifera have been found. This promordial organism
gradually developed into single nucleated cells, called Amœbæ, and
these again into masses of nucleated cells, called Synamœbæ. These
simple and multiple cell organisms we place in the next period,
Huronian, in the strata of which geologists tell us have been found
fossil remains of lowly organised molluscs, or soft-bodied animals.
Ciliata are the next forms of life, which consist of Synamœbæ, covered
with vibratile cilia. These gradually developed a mouth, becoming
Gastrœada, and afterwards Turbellaria, a low form of worm (Vermes),
with a mouth and alimentary canal; and are placed in the Cambrian
period, in which stratum have been found remains of this kind of life.
The ascent continues through the transition stage of Scolecida to
Himatega, or sack-worms, with their rudimentary spinal cords; from
which gradually evolved Acrania, or the first vertebrate animals,
without skulls, brains, central heart, jaws, or limbs; but with a true
vertebral cord. This peculiar little animal was a lancet-shaped marine
worm, akin to the lancelet or amphioxus of to-day. From these developed
Monorrhini, or vertebrate hybrid worms and fishes, with skull, brain,
and central heart, but no sympathetic system, jaws, or limbs, and with
a single nasal cavity (lampreys). These three forms are placed in the
Silurian period, in which stratum have been found fossilised bony
plates and scales of fishes and Annelides, or sea-worms.
The next forms of life to be developed, from the Monorrhini, were the
Selachii (Amphirrhini), or true fishes, of the shark family, with two
nasal cavities, swim-bladder, two pairs of fins, and jaws. From these
evolved the Ganoidei, and thence all osseous fishes; and Dipnoi (mud
fish), or hybrid fishes and amphibians, with both gills and lungs.
These little animals live during winter in water, when they breathe
air dissolved in water through their gills; and during the summer in
mud, when they breathe with their lungs. Both these are placed in the
Devonian period, in which have been found fossil sharks, etc. The next
forms are Sozobranchii, or amphibians with persistent gills, from which
evolved Urodela, or amphibians with transitory gills, but persistent
tails, and legs; allied to the salamander. These are placed in the
Carboniferous period, in which have been found fossilised amphibians.
We next get Protamnia, or hybrid salamanders and lizards (frogs and
toads), with no gills or tails, but possessing an amnion and cloaca.
These represent the parent forms of the three great higher branches of
vertebrates—Reptilia, Aves (which evolved from reptiles), and Mammalia,
and are placed in the Permian period, in which have been found
fossilised amphibians and true reptiles. Monotremata (Promammalia) are
the next forms developed in our pedigree, the parent forms of the class
Mammalia; with cloaca, amnion, and marsupial bones; which are placed in
the Triassic period; and from which evolved Marsupialia, mammals with
amnion and marsupial bones, but no cloaca; allied to the kangaroo and
opossum of to-day. This species we place in the Jurassic and Cretaceous
periods. From Marsupialia developed the large kingdom of Placentalia,
which lose the marsupial bones and cloaca, and acquire a placenta, and
which we divide into three main branches, according to the particular
placental formation. The first division we call Villiplacentalia (tufty
placenta), from which evolved Edentata (sloth, ant-eaters, and tertiary
monsters), Cetacea (marine placental mammals, such as whale, dolphin,
porpoise, and sea-cow), and Ungulata (horse, cow, pig, rhinoceros, and
hippopotamus). The second division we term Zenoplacentalia (ring-like
placenta), the earliest forms of which were Carnaria, or flesh-eaters,
from which came Carnivora, or land beasts of prey (cats, dogs, bears,
etc.), and Pinnipedia, or marine beasts of prey (seal and walrus). The
third division we name Discoplacentalia (discoid placenta); and here
we find, as the first development, the Prosimiæ, or tailed lemurs,
quadrupeds with claws, and having the appearance of hybrid cats and
monkeys. All these are placed in the Eocene period, in which stratum
geologists have found fossilised placentals.
From the discoplacental-mammal Prosimiæ evolved the following
species—viz., Prosimiæ of Madagascar (lemurs of to-day), with four feet
and claws; Cheiroptera (bats); Rodentia (squirrels, mice, porcupines,
hares); Insectivora (moles, shrew-mice, and hedgehogs); and Simiæ,
or quadruped monkeys, with two feet, two hands, nails, and tails. We
divide Simiæ into two classes, the Platyrrhini, or New World apes, with
thirty-six teeth, tails, no cheek-pouches or callosities, and nasal
cavities pointing outwards and divided by a thick septum (from which
came the American howlers, weepers, capuchins, and squirrel-monkeys);
and the Catarrhini (Menocerca), or Old World apes, with thirty-two
teeth (like man), tails, cheek-pouches, callosities, and nasal cavities
pointing downwards and divided by a thin septum (like man). These are
placed in the Meiocene period, in which have been discovered the first
fossil apes. From the Catarrhini developed the tailed baboons and
macaques, with thirty-two teeth, cheek-pouches, and callosities; and
the Anthropoidæ, with thirty-two teeth, but no tails, cheek-pouches,
or callosities. These were evolved during the Pleiocene period. From
the anthropoid (man-like) apes we get three distinct divisions—viz.,
the gibbon and orang families, with no tails or cheek-pouches,
walking partly on hind legs, and wandering in companies in India;
the chimpanzee and gorilla families of Africa, with no tails or
cheek-pouches, no articulate speech, walking on hind legs only, living
in companies in caves, and carrying their babes in their arms; and
Alali, or ape-like men, commonly called the “missing links,” who
were probably developed, during the Pleiocene period, in Lemuria, a
submerged continent which formerly occupied the position of the Indian
Ocean; or in the districts of the Nile and Ganges.
These primitive ape-like men were the connecting links between men and
the apes, and are divided into two main branches—viz., woolly-haired
Alali, who migrated from Lemuria, west and south; and straight-haired
Alali, who migrated from Lemuria, north, east, and south. Both
these branches had skulls of the same character as those of the
chimpanzee and gorilla—that is, they were dolichocephalic (long-headed)
prognathous (prominent jaws), and also, like their ape brethren, were
troglodytes, or cave-dwellers. From the woolly-haired Alali evolved the
Papuans of New Guinea and Tasmania, and the Hottentots of Africa, whose
descendants of to-day are but little removed in brain development from
the higher apes. They are dolichocephalic prognathous savages, with
black, hairy skins, long arms, and short, thin legs, with ill-developed
calves; are semi-erect, walk on hind legs, and have no true articulate
speech. A higher development of the woolly-haired Alali is the
Negro, and higher still the Caffre, both of whom are dolichocephalic
prognathous savages, with black, semi-hairy skins, and imperfect
articulation. From the straight-haired Alali are derived the Australian
natives and the large family of Malays or Polynesians. The Australians
migrated south, and were dolichocephalic prognathous savages, with
smooth, dirty brown skins, and straight black hair. The lowest tribes
of the present day have no true articulate speech. The Polynesians
migrated north and east, and were dolichocephalic prognathous
troglodytes (as the gorilla and chimpanzee), with clear, smooth brown
skins, and true articulate speech. This branch split up into two large
families, the Mongolian or Turanian, and the Caucasian or Iranian.
The former covered Northern and Eastern Asia, Polynesia, and America,
and were originally brachycephalic (broad-headed) prognathous men.
They subdivided into two distinct species, the Mongols of China,
Japan, Lapland, Finland, and Hungary, who are brachycephalic, but not
prognathous, with smooth, brownish yellow skin, and straight black
hair; and the Mongols of America, who are mesocephalic (round-headed),
but not prognathous, with smooth red skins and straight black hair.
The Caucasian family covered Western Asia and most of Europe, being
mesocephalic prognathous troglodytes (afterwards agriculturalists)
with smooth dark skins and long straight hair; and subdivided into
two branches, the Semitic, of Arabia and Syria, and the Aryan or
Indo-European; both of whom are mesocephalic, but not prognathous.
It is true that, so far, no fossil remains of Alali have been found,
with the exception of the Neanderthal skull; but it is equally true
that they may soon be discovered. It is only comparatively recently
that the other species have been found fossilised; and it must be
recollected that only a very small portion of the earth’s crust has yet
been explored, and that not the most likely for finding. No attempts
have been yet made to unearth the life-remains in the neighbourhood
of the Indian Ocean, where it is believed man first evolved from his
ape-like ancestors. It does not, however, seem to me to be essentially
necessary that the “missing link” be found in order to substantiate
the Evolution theory. There is so little difference between the higher
anthropoid apes and man, compared with the enormous differences
observed between the earlier forms of life and the ape species, that
the sequence and continuity appear now conclusively settled to any
reasonable observer. Comparative anatomists and embryologists both
declare in favour of the theory of development of Darwin and Haeckel.
It is a fact beyond dispute that every human being commences his
individual existence as a tiny piece of structureless bioplasm, from
which condition he passes through the Amœba stage to the Synamœba, and
thence in regular order through each successive stage of development
marked in the genealogy given above, becoming worm, fish, and mammal
in turn, and finally being born into the world as a member of the
human family. Each of these lower forms also passes through all the
species preceding it in precisely the same manner. This is one of the
strongest arguments in favour of Evolution. It is said that the power
of speech possessed by man opposes a strong barrier to the theory;
but it has been shown clearly that other animals besides man can
use articulate sounds, which convey meanings to each other. Monkeys
certainly understand each other’s chattering, and it is highly probable
that birds also understand each other’s cries. It is true that the
sounds made by animals are chiefly monosyllabic; but philologists
now tell us that the languages spoken by primitive races of men are
compounded of quite simple elements, perfectly within the grasp of an
ape’s voice. Travellers, whose veracity and ability cannot be impugned,
have described long conferences held by monkeys, where one individual
addressed the assembly at great length, fixing the attention of all
upon himself, and quelling every disturbance by a loud and harsh
cry, which was at once recognised and obeyed by the multitude. Is
it credible that this should be purposeless? Is it not actually the
exercise of speech?
Is it not possible—nay, even extremely probable—that, under the
irresistible pressure of civilised man, his immediate precursor may
have become extinct? All the human races that now tend to bridge the
interval between the highest man and the highest ape are fast becoming
extinct under this very pressure. The gulf widens, and will widen.
The Caribs and Tasmanians have passed away, while the Australians,
New Zealanders, aboriginal Americans, Eskimo, and others, are fast
following in their wake, and this all in a comparatively short space
of time. There is undoubtedly now a far greater physical and mental
interval between the Hottentot woman and such men as Gladstone and
Darwin than between the Hottentot and an ape. It is a fact beyond
dispute that man was not in such a high state of development ages gone
by as at present. The earliest traces of man exhibit him to us in the
Palæolithic, or old stone, age, as wild and living in caves, using only
the rudest stone implements with which to battle with the ferocious
monsters around him. His jaw was then prognathous, like the ape, and
his body large and powerful.
In the limestone caverns of France have been discovered the fossil
remains of men who inhabited caves and belonged to the Palæolithic,
or early Pleistocene, period. Together with these troglodytes, or
cave-dwellers, were rough, unpolished stone implements and weapons,
denoting a low state of civilisation. Other caves, in later strata,
give us lighter stone weapons, of better finish, and occasionally horn
dart-points, such as would be used for catching smaller game. Numbers
of skin-scrapers also were found, suggesting the idea that the people
used the hides of animals for clothing, instead of going naked, as
their ancestors. The hairy character of the body would be probably
giving place to a finer, smoother, and more delicate outer skin,
which would necessitate clothing of some kind. Still later we find
implements altogether of flint, lancet-shaped, admirably-proportioned,
and of three sizes, adapted for arrow, javeline, and lance points
respectively, and designed to be fitted to wooden and bone shafts.
After these appear arrows and darts of deer’s horn and bone, and stone
and flint tools, which were used for making these arrows. We also find
such implements as bone awls and needles for piercing and sewing skins,
arrow-heads furnished with barbs on each side, and harpoons barbed on
one side only.
Now was man’s intellect fairly on the swing; but still he was, as yet,
only in the Palæolithic period, for not one polished implement nor
fragment of pottery is found in their stations. They were surrounded
by ferocious carnivora, which sometimes fell victims to their weapons.
The mammoth still tenanted the valleys, and the reindeer was the common
article of food. They were hunters, possessed of the rudest modes of
existence, and with but little of what is now called civilisation.
In Britain the troglodyte man was contemporary with the mammoth,
rhinoceros, lion, and hyena, none of which existed in the later
Pleistocene era; but there have been no perfect skeletons found here
like those in France. Human _bones_, however, have been discovered in
various deposits, together with the skeletons of long-extinct animals.
The best British human fossil is the portion of an upper jaw containing
four teeth, from Kent’s Cavern. Hermetically sealed in stalagmite,
deposited on the floor of the cavern by water dropping from the roof,
this jaw lay _below_ the remains of extinct mammals; while beneath all
were bone and stone implements of human workmanship, equally firmly
fixed in a natural limestone cement. Geology fixes the date of this
troglodyte at the early Pleistocene period, and it is beyond doubt that
man existed at this remote period, or even earlier, in Europe, for the
human remains found in France clearly testify to the fact; and even in
America his antiquity must be very great indeed, for a human skull was
found in the delta of the Mississippi beneath _four_ different layers
of forest growth, which must have formed part of a living human being
50,000 years since. The celebrated Neanderthal skull, of which so much
has been heard, certainly belongs to the mammoth age, if not earlier;
and, if it represent a race, and not merely an individual, that race
would lie in a position intermediate between the lowest man and the
highest ape. It _may_ only represent a man of peculiar formation, as we
often see men in the present day deformed or of eccentric build; and,
therefore, we cannot look upon it _positively_ as the “missing link.”
One other similar find, however, would for ever settle the question,
and proclaim to the world that the “missing link” was, at last, found.
In capacity, the cranium is human, while the superciliary arches
and the brow are distinctly ape-like. Professor Huxley sums up his
examination of this skull with the remark that “the Neanderthal skull
is, of human remains, that which presents the most marked and definite
characters of a lower type.”
Following the Palæolithic era, or rude stone age, is the Neolithic,
or new stone, age; and now we find man using polished weapons, making
pottery, using fire to warm himself with, and developing social
manners. Instead of living in caves, he lived in lake dwellings, with
others of his species, and gradually developed agricultural tastes.
This metamorphosis, we know from the fossil remains found deposited
in various strata, occupied a long period of time, probably thousands
of years; and even then we are left thousands of years before the
historical era, which followed the bronze and iron ages. Compare these
men with those who lived in the Grecian and Egyptian eras, and again
compare these latter with ourselves, and the record is one of trial
and failure through long ages, and of experiment crowned at last by
attainment. Has not the invention of the steam-engine alone been a
means of extending man’s dominion in a marvellous manner? Think what
has been achieved through electricity! There has, undoubtedly, been a
continued struggle from barbarism to civilisation, and the little we
know of the early history of man tells us that he lived the life of a
wild beast, leaving no impression on the earth save one of the victims
of his well-aimed stone or flint-pointed spear.
So much for the “missing link.” There is one other point to be settled
before we have completed the sequence of evolution, which commences
with the condensation of the nebulous vapour and terminates with the
development of man; and that is the question of how life originated.
We have found that the first dawn of life was in the form of a simple
speck of bioplasm, void of any structure; and that this primordial
germ, which we call a Moneron, was developed in the earliest period
of deposition of stratified rock at the bottom of the sea, and is now
being constantly developed as of old. Now, if the theory of evolution
be not mere talk, this primordial germ must have been spontaneously
evolved from inanimate matter, for the theory allows of no break,
being a gradual unfolding of phenomena. We are told that there is no
experience in nature of such a development. Perhaps so; but that is no
argument against it. There is no experience in nature of any special
creation either; so why fly to this alternative, which is the only
one presented to us, instead of adopting the theory which agrees so
harmoniously with the whole evolutionary process? Why make this abrupt
break in the chain of sequence? Does it not annihilate completely the
whole theory of evolution? It is not more wonderful that life should
be evolved from inanimate nature than that man should be evolved from
a structureless bioplasm. The continuity of evolution once broken, why
may it not be broken again and again?
If we are to accept the theory of evolution, we are bound to admit
that animate was evolved from inanimate matter. And the difficulty of
this admission is not, after all, so great as appears at first sight;
for who is to say whether such a condition really exists as inanimate
matter? It is a fact that every particle of matter in nature is in a
state of active motion; every molecule and atom is constantly active.
And why is this not life as much as the animal or vegetable, though
in a modified degree of development? Evolution, if it mean anything,
should admit this; and I will show you that it does not admit it
only, but absolutely declares that it is so. In the first place, it
must be recollected that Balfour Stewart, and all other physical and
chemical scientists, declare that every thing in nature is composed of
molecules and atoms. The molecules are the smallest quantities into
which any individual body or substance can be divided without losing
its individuality. For instance, table-salt, or chloride of sodium, can
be divided and subdivided, until you get to the limit of subdivision,
which is a molecule composed of chlorine and sodium in chemical
combination. Further subdivision annihilates its individuality as salt,
and leaves us with the two elementary chemical atoms, chlorine and
sodium, existing independently of each other. These atoms are incapable
of further subdivision. In the same manner, the whole matter of the
universe may be subdivided into molecules, which consist of atoms of
some two or more of about sixty-seven chemical elements in various
combinations. These atoms are the smallest separate particles of
masses of matter, and are separated from each other by what is termed
hypothetical ether—that is, the fluid ether we believe to be pervading
every portion of space. Each atom possesses an inherent sum of force,
or energy. The well-established and universally-admitted theory of
chemical affinity teaches us that these atoms are capable of attracting
and repelling each other, and, therefore, also teaches us, by
implication, that they are possessed with definite inclinations, follow
these sensations or impulses, and have also the will and ability to
move to and from one another. This we are clearly taught by chemistry.
Thus every atom in the universe possesses sensation and will, pleasure
and displeasure, desire and loathing, attraction and repulsion; and
its mass is, moreover, indestructible and unchangeable, and its energy
eternal, as we are again taught by the theory of conservation of
energy and matter. These sentient atoms of universal matter, whose
aggregate energy is the great animating spirit of the universe, have
the power of uniting together in various chemical combinations to
form molecules, or chemical unities, developing fresh properties in
the process, and forming the lowest conceivable division of compound
material substances, some atoms uniting to build up crystals and
other inorganic masses, and others to develop the various organic or
life forms. The atoms of the ultimate molecules of both organic and
inorganic bodies are identically the same. It depends entirely upon
what particular combination of atoms takes place whether an organic or
inorganic form is developed. The primordial life-form we have found
to be simple homogeneous plasm, consisting of molecules, each of
which is composed of atoms of five elements—carbon, oxygen, nitrogen,
hydrogen, and sulphur, differing not one iota from the molecules
of inorganic bodies, except that it acquires the special power of
reproduction, by virtue of the peculiar combination of its atoms, which
power is wanting in the inorganic world, whose molecules are composed
of similar atoms, but in different combinations. This is the only
difference between the organic, or life, world, and the inorganic, or
lifeless, world—life being, as compared with unlife, but the power
of reproduction. As examples of this, we may take crystals, the most
perfect development of inorganic nature, and the moneron, the least
perfect development of organic nature; and the difference between them
is almost _nil_, certainly less than between the parents and offspring
in many life-forms. The crystal molecules are composed of elementary
chemical atoms, as are the moneron molecules; but the former grow by
particles being deposited on particles externally, while the latter
grow by particles penetrating from without, or being absorbed into
the interior and becoming assimilated by the plasm, fresh molecules
being evolved in the process, this special power of reproduction being
generated by the peculiar combination of the atoms. This argument
appears to me to be logically and scientifically sound, and disposes
altogether of the notion of a break of continuity between the living
and the unliving worlds, which is such a formidable difficulty to many
minds. The plasm thus formed by the aggregation of life molecules
gradually differentiates into protoplasm and nucleus, which together
form a simple cell; and this cell partakes, by heredity, of the nature
and properties of its parent form, and also, by adaptation to different
circumstances surrounding its existence, acquires fresh properties,
which, together with the inherited properties, it transmits to its
progeny, thus evolving a still more complex form, inheriting the
acquired and inherited properties of its parent, and again acquiring
fresh properties; and so on, _ad infinitum_, through the various
life-forms we know have been developed in the pedigree of man and
animals, through Amœbæ, Synamœbæ, etc., as in the genealogy given above.
In the course of the development of different life-forms
heredity—which, in plain English, is unconscious memory generated
in the first life-form and transmitted through all the different
species—is the sole factor in the preservation of the parent
properties; while adaptation to surrounding conditions and
circumstances, natural selection in the struggle for existence, and
sexual selection in the struggle of the males for females are the
principal factors in the differentiation of species.
Having traced man’s pedigree according to the Evolution theory, from
primitive nebulous matter to his present commanding position, and found
him possessed with reason and the power of controlling and regulating
the forces of nature, our next inquiry is naturally for what purpose
is he here and what will become of him eventually. Here we come to
the most difficult problem of all ages, which has baffled learned men
of all nationalities, and which will probably never be satisfactorily
solved. Intimately connected with it is the almost as difficult
problem, How was the universe caused at all? There are eminent
scientific men who think they can conclusively show that the universe
existed from eternity; others as positively assert that it must have
been caused by a power outside and independent of itself; while others
are equally convinced that it was self-created. But when we examine
their arguments we find ourselves unable logically to accept any of
their conclusions.
The Atheist declares that the universe has existed from eternity, not
having been produced by any other agency, and, therefore, without
any beginning; which necessarily implies the conception of infinite
past time—an effort of which the human mind is quite incapable. The
Pantheist declares that the universe evolved out of potential existence
into actual existence by virtue of some inherent necessity; which
is as unthinkable as the previous one, for potential existence must
be either something, in which case it would be actual existence,
or nothing, which it could not possibly be. But admitting, for the
sake of argument, the possibility of potential existence as nothing,
still we should have to account for its origin, which would involve
us in an infinity of still more remote potentialities. The Theistic
theory of creation by external agency implies either formation of
matter out of nothing, which is inconceivable, or out of pre-existing
materials, which leaves us under the necessity of showing the origin
of the pre-existing elements, and, like the preceding theory, would
involve us in an infinity of remote pre-existences. It also involves
the existence of a potentiality outside matter, which must either be
caused, which involves a prior cause, or uncaused, in which case it
must be either finite or infinite. If it be finite, it must be limited,
and, consequently, there must exist something outside its limits, which
destroys the notion of its being a first cause. Therefore, it must be
infinite. Also, as first cause, it must be independent; for dependency
would imply a more remote cause. The first cause must, therefore, be
both infinite and absolute, which is an absurdity; for a cause can only
exist in relation to its effect, and therefore cannot be absolute; and
the fact of its being infinite deprives us of the only means of escape
from the difficulty, by showing the impossibility of its being first of
all absolute and afterwards cause; for the infinite cannot become what
it once was not.
Thus, then, we are driven to the conclusion that logic shows the
Theistic conception of the origin of nature, equally as much as the
Pantheistic and the Atheistic, to be utterly impossible; but it must
be admitted that if, instead of matter, we substitute time and space
in our consideration of this most important matter, the Atheistic
theory more nearly approaches the conceivable than either of the other
two; for by no mental effort can we conceive the formation of time and
space either by external agency or inherent necessity. It is absolutely
impossible for us to conceive the idea of the non-existence of either
time or space.
Because the human mind cannot conceive the possibility of nature
being produced by external agency, it does not follow that we are
bound to admit the impossibility of the existence of an intelligence
controlling nature’s laws; for it is quite possible that such an
existence may be, though our finite minds cannot comprehend it. The
Agnostic philosopher, although he cannot logically demonstrate the
existence of the Divine Being, yet declares that, inasmuch as this
universe consists of existing phenomena, it is absolutely necessary
that there should be some cause adequate for the production of the
effects manifested. By this process of reasoning he arrives at the
conclusion that there exists a something controlling nature, which is
utterly incomprehensible—an ultimate reality, of which force and matter
are alike merely the phenomenal manifestations. This ultimate reality,
moreover, is intelligent.
We cannot recall the wonders of the evolutionary development of the
universe without at once seeing that there is purpose at the bottom of
all, and that chance is no factor in the process. We cannot believe
that man is but a fortuitous concourse of atoms. Reason tells us
clearly that we are here for a well-ordained purpose; but what that
purpose is we cannot tell. The old notion that our destiny is to
prepare ourselves here, to live again in our bodily forms, play harps,
and sing halleluyah to all eternity, I regard as mere moonshine. Such
a fate would be to me far worse than annihilation. But that we have a
future destiny of some sort I have no doubt. We know we must die, and
that when we die our bodily functions, including brain functions,
will cease to be performed. Are we, then, annihilated? The answer of
scientists is decisively “Yes, so far as we are concerned as sentient
individual beings.” Science teaches us that the three things which
make up consciousness, or man’s mental side, are thought, emotion,
and volition; that they are inseparably bound up with the brain and
the nervous system, whose functions they are; and that when the brain
dies these functions cease. This is undeniable. Therefore, if there
is any future existence, it is not one of consciousness. The power of
muscular movement is arrested at death, and, therefore, we must admit
that the power of thought, emotion, and volition ceases at death. Why
should the appearance be deceptive in one case and not in the other?
It is not the case of a separate entity in the body, but of a distinct
function—an effect which ceases with its proper cause. It is absolutely
certain, from the teaching of science, that the consciousness grows as
the brain and body grow, varies according to the standard of health in
the brain, and declines as the general vigour of the brain declines;
and, therefore, we can but admit that it dies with the brain. We also
learn from Embryology that consciousness evolved by slow degrees from
unconsciousness, and that once there was no thought in any of us. Even
if science were to admit that man’s consciousness continued after
death, it would be equally rational to admit that animals also had a
future consciousness; for it is quite clear we have slowly evolved
from the lowest germ of animal life. Man’s very attributes are found
in a lower degree in animals, and yet it is the possession of his
lofty attributes which he says entitles him to conscious immortality.
The intellectual qualities in animals differ from those in man only
in degree, while in the possession of some of the highest moral
attributes—such as courage, fidelity, patience, self-sacrifice, and
affection—some of the lower animals, as the dog, the horse, and the
ant, far surpass him. Even among human beings themselves these higher
qualities, mental and moral, exist in all degrees, from their almost
total absence in the savage up to the mental and moral splendour of a
Buddha, a Socrates, a Disraeli, or a Gladstone. Are all these lower
animals, savage men, and intellectual and moral geniuses, to have
individual conscious immortality? If, as some say, man only and not
animals are immortal, then the question naturally arises, When and how
came man so? If he was always immortal, so were animals. If he became
immortal later on, he must either have slowly acquired the gift, or it
must have been suddenly conferred upon him. In either case there must
have been a particular moment when he became immortal. Can we conceive
of such a thing as the species being mortal one moment and immortal the
next? The question of _how_ he became immortal is still more difficult,
as the question _why_, or for what merit, is wholly unanswerable.
Then, again, science teaches us that animal life, of whatever form,
will vanish from the earth long before the inevitable decay of the
planet itself. Geologists tell us that, in obedience to a general law,
all species have their term of living. They appear, and after a time
disappear. How absurd, then, to raise a question as to the conscious
individual immortality of the countless myriads of a species that shall
itself have utterly vanished without leaving a trace!
Are we, then, annihilated at death? Yes, as conscious individuals. We
are bound to admit the force of all the arguments brought forward by
science against the theory of a future conscious existence; but these
arguments in no way affect the great problem of the “ego,” or “self,”
which exists in all of us, irrespective of consciousness, memory, or
other brain function. A man may be unconscious, and yet live; therefore
consciousness is not necessary to life. When we ask ourselves whether
we shall be annihilated at death, we should first of all have a clear
definition of the word “we” before we reply. What are we? What am I?
I am not consciousness, which is but a function of one of my organs,
the brain, and which merely enables me to know myself. Then what am
I? I cannot conceive that I am anything but the energy or life-power
developed by the aggregation of my life-particles, which causes the
various organs of my body to perform their functions, as cerebrating,
etc. The primordial germ of my body was a simple bioplasm, consisting
of a combination of life-molecules, composed of energetic atoms.
From these molecules evolved fresh molecules, which, under the laws
of heredity and variation, acquired new properties; until, at last,
a complex organism became developed, possessing far higher powers
than those belonging to the primordial germ. As the development of
species continued, higher forces became manifested; until, at last,
the condition of man was reached, and a life-power developed of a much
higher order than any previously known. This life-power, or human
energy, is the “ego,” the “self,” the cause of the bodily functions,
and is eternal. Kant declared there was a world unknown, independent
of our conscious phenomenal world; and this we must admit to be true,
for we have already granted the existence of an unknown cause, of
which force and matter are merely the phenomenal manifestations. It is
this outer world of unknown and invisible energy that the scientist
finds himself unable to deal with. The death of the body is simply
the cessation of cohesion, or dissolution of partnership, between the
ultimate atoms of the plasm life-molecules, by which dissolution the
property called life ceases, and the atoms of the body assume their
original condition, again containing their original sum of force. But
what becomes of the huge force developed during the lifetime of the
bodily organism? Does that vanish and become a thing of naught? My
opinion is that this human force, which is the outcome of the complex
union of the ultimate atoms of the plasm life-molecules, and which is
but a phenomenal manifestation of the great incomprehensible cause of
all phenomena, will, at the death of the body, be re-absorbed into the
great animating spirit of the universe, and partake of the nature and
properties of the Unknown. This is but my opinion, from which many may
differ. I merely offer it as an opinion, and in no way shut my eyes to
the great fact that man’s destiny is a riddle as yet unsolved. We may
safely leave the matter to be dealt with according to the wisdom of
that unknown cause of all things, resting quite assured that we shall
be far better disposed of than we could possibly dispose of ourselves,
even if we had the power. We must bow the head in a truly scientific
spirit, and reply to the great question, “I cannot tell.”
“To be or not to be? that is the question,” says the immortal
Shakespeare; after which he sums up the whole argument in two short
lines:—
“To die, to sleep. To sleep? perchance to dream—
Aye, there’s the rub.”