Изображения страниц

and to the solution of which he says every good citizen ought to feel bound to contribute, “even if he have nothing but a scalpel to work withal.” Yet such reasoning, and such style of argument, is the only contribution which he makes towards its solution.

We think Mr. Huxley would have acted more wisely if he had stuck to his scalpel, as a good practical anatomist, as he undoubtedly is, instead of ambitiously attempting to solve a great philosophical question, by arguments which prove that he has yet to learn the very alphabet of a sound logical philosophy. As a general rule, he argues that Man ought to be classed with the Apes, because some members of the extensive Order of Quadrumana, as for instance the Flying Cat, or the Madagascar Rat, or the squirrel-like Marmoset, differ from a gorilla, as much as a gorilla differs from a Bosjeman. But, when he is forced to admit that there is an “infinite divergence” between a gorilla and a Bosjeman, dependent upon what he acknowledges to be distinctive and structural differences, he would have us to believe that this is of no account, because there are cultivated men who surpass the most debased specimens of the race, as much as these last surpass the highest Apes.

This argument of differences, in the manner in which he employed it before, was, as we have seen, absurd enough ; but when he undertakes to make the differences among men, arising from their capability of indefinite progress,—which is a distinctive characteristic of the superiority of human nature,—an argument to prove man's inferiority and unity with the brutes, its illogical absurdity becomes so intense, that there is no word in the language sufficiently strong to characterize it.

The fact that men differ so widely from one another in elevation, and are so capable of indefinite improvement,—while the identity of nature of all men is universally admitted,-is of itself conclusive proof that their nature, and consequently, that their origin must be diverse from that of the brutes, which admit of no such progress, and of no such corresponding debasement,

Mr. Huxley, in his concluding remarks, offers a defense which sounds more like an apology for his preposterous conclusion. He says that the opposing argument, founded on Man's moral differences, " would have my entire sympathy, if it were only relevant," and that it is not he that “ seeks to base Man's dignity on his great toe, or insinuate that we are lost, if an Ape has a hippocampus minor.” In the next breath he exclaims :- At the same time, no one is more strongly convinced than I am, of the vastness of the gulf between cirilized man and the brutes ; or is more certain that whether from them or not, he is assuredly not of them.” What is this but an involuntary confession on his part, that there is an impassable separation between man's nature and that of brutes, arising either from moral or structural differences; and, in either case, how can he consistently contend for their unity of origin and identity of place in Nature ?

He scouts at the idea, “that the belief in the unity of origin of man and brutes, involves the brutalization and degradation of the former.” He thinks

He thinks a sensible child could confute such an opinion. So he might, if he could prove that unity of origin was properly connected with entire diversity of nature and characteristic attributes. The argument which he himself uses to confute this opinion, is in these words :

“ Is it indeed true that the Poet or the Philosopher or the Artist, whose genius is the glory of his age. is degraded from his high estate by the undoubted historical probability, not to say certainty, that he is the direct descendant of some naked and bestial savage, whose intelligence was just sufficient to make him a little more cunning than the Fox, and by so much more dangerous than the Tiger.”

His “sensible child” would very promptly reply, certainly not, because in this case, unity of origin is very properly connected with identity of nature, and that nature is characteristically susceptible of indefinite improvement, which accounts for all the difference.'

Besides, it is entirely a gratuitous assumption on the part of Mr. Huxley, to suppose that the civilized man is, ab origine, the direct descendant of the savage. The records of

historic and monumental, in every nation and in every race, proclaim that barbarism is the result of moral degradation, and that savage tribes are the isolated offshoots of more civilized nations. Whether this be so or not, the undoubted fact of the improvability of the race, from the lowest stage of degradation to the highest pinnacle of excellence, is conclusive evidence, irrespective of any absolute anatomical difference, that man's nature is entirely diverse from that of brutes, and that he must, necessarily, have had a different origin. This fact alone, instead of supporting, would be a sufficient refutation of Mr. Huxley's conclusion,


Some of our readers may think that we have been at unnecessary pains in combating so fully a doctrine which seems so preposterous in itself, and which is supported by an argument so illogical. But this opinion will be changed, when the reader learns, with surprise, that this doctrine, however absurd it may seem to him, has been received with favor by many scientific men, and that it has been endorsed, we may even say, laboriously supported, by Sir Charles Lyell. What, however, has chiefly induced us to spare no pains in exposing the false philosophy of this book, is the fact, that its plausible but deceptious reasoning in regard to scientific facts, is readily received by the unlearned,—for whom it is expressly written,-as a conclusive scientific argument against the truth of Revelation.

It was our intention to establish, directly, the distinct nature and origin of man, by an argument founded on his faculty of speech ; on his power of abstract reason, enabling him to ascend from facts to principles; and on his spiritual endowments, which are his true characteristics, and which, notwithstanding Mr. Huxley's assertion, are the only considerations which are truly germane to the great question he has propounded and belittled.

But the utter fallacy of the only argument which he has advanced to prove Man's unity with the brutes, and consequent bestiality of nature, render this task unnecessary. We will conclude this Article, already too long, but which could not have been shorter, in justice to Mr. Huxley and his subject, by quoting the forcible words of the distinguished French anatomist whom we have already cited. VOL. XVII.


“ The facts upon which I insist, permit me to affirm, with a conviction founded on personal and attentive study of all at present known, that anatomy gives no ground for the idea, so violently defended now. a-days, of a close relationship between man and ape. One may invoke in vain some ancient skulls, evident monstrosities, found by chance, such as that of Neanderthal; and here and there similar forms may now be found ; they belong to idiots. One of them was discovered, a few years ago, by Dr. Binder, who, at the request of M. Macé, presented it to me. It is now in the collection of the Museum. It will henceforth be counted among the elements of the great discussion on the nature of man, which now agitates philosophers and troubles consciences; out of which discussion, some day, the divine majesty of man shall arise, consecrated by combat, and ever henceforth be inviolable and triumphant."

(To be continued.)

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]



A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of New York,

from the Bishop, May, 1865. This Pastoral Letter of Bishop Potter came none too soon. It has been manifest for some time, that Ecclesiastical matters were approaching a crisis in New York city and its immediate vicinity, and that an issue of some sort was about to be made ; though in what form it would present itself, of course, no body could tell. The only question, now, concerning this Pastoral, is, whether it will answer the end for which its amiable and peace-loving author designed it. We confess to some doubt on this point. Positive treatment, vigorously applied, is sometimes the mildest, most judicious, and only effective method, in dealing with physical diseases ; it has seemed to us that there was a degree of virulence manifested in the spiritual distempers of our time, which would be much more likely to feed and grow on gentle remedies, than be subdued by them. We may be mistaken.

The Church in New York city has always been strong enough to be secure against open assaults. Churchmen in New England were persecuted, fined, and imprisoned, simply because they were Churchmen ; and the vilest placards were once posted in Boston to stir up the mob in resistance to the landing of a Bishop at that home of “Freedom of Conscience !” Here, in New York, the hatred of the Church has been bitter enough ; but it has vented itself in milder and more harmless ways. It has usually been content with snubbing such men as Bishop Wainwright when it could get them into one of its “Fore-fathers” Meetings ; or, with publishing and puffing such stupid octavos as Mr. Shimeall's " End of Prelacy.” It is, however, a little amusing, that the same sort of men who set Mr. Shimeall to write his ridiculous book,-a book filled with the most scurrilous charges and historical misstatements, and then gave to that book their public written endorsement, and who seemed

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »