ee What was to become of the world after that time we are not informed. The celebrated Leibnitz went so far as to claim that the souls of men were in monads or the primary elements of matter. According to him the monads were without extent, incorruptible, and so constituted that their whole future is contained in their beginning." "In every monad might be read the world's history from beginning to end; each of them being a kind of Deity." a kind of Deity." "God is the absolute, original monad, from which all the rest are generated; the primitive and necessary substance, in which the detail of changes exists emanantly." ("Am. Cyc.,” p. 325, vol. 10.) Either the ovulist or the animalculist theory held sway with the majority of men, both learned and unlearned, until after the beginning of the nineteenth century. From 1690 to 1812 one or the other theory held the uppermost position among scientific men; and for about two hundred years one or the other of these theories held especial prominence in scientific discussions. The supporters of present evolutionary theories are not superior in intellectual vigor to Leibnitz, Haller, and others, who, a hundred or more years ago, were fully satisfied that they were correct in the views which they promulgated concerning the origin and development of life. So also the doctrine of cataclysms, which Cuvier believed, and which hosts of other great men believed, held almost universal acceptance until Lyell showed that the building of the earth's different strata might have been accomplished through long ages, quietly, and under the regular operations of nature. The fact that a theory may apparently explain certain heretofore unexplained phenomena by no means shows that "THE WAYS OF MONKEYS." 137 some other theory may not explain these phenomena much better. While it is true that men and apes are wonderfully similar in their affectionate attachments, and the grief of the ape mother on being deprived of her children by death is much like that of the human mother, and the disposition to curiously examine and investigate concerning all objects within their reach is much alike in men and apes, yet something more than proof of similarities of disposition and physical structure is needed to show that one of these species could ever have descended from the other. The assent of a majority of the most learned naturalists and biologists for a whole generation is not enough, in a matter like the origin of the human race (concerning which unimpeachable evidence has not been obtained from science), to reasonably induce a fully settled belief in theories which have not, and probably cannot, at present, be demonstrated. In "Popular Science Monthly" for June, 1885, there is a very able article on "The Ways of Monkeys," from the pen of the noted German naturalist, Alfred E. Brehm. Brehm had extensive and uncommon opportunities for studying the nature and habits of the apes, both in captivity and in the wilds where they live, and he closes his article as follows: "Was the ancestor of the human race a monkey? is the vexed question which still raises so much dust. That Ce There is no doubt that man is not more and not less than the chief creature in the animal kingdom, and that the monkeys are his immediate neighbors; but I cannot see why this fact should logically involve the assumption that our great-great-uncles were gambolling in Paradise in the shape of apes. The doctrine of gradual evolution may seem trustworthy in the highest degree, and beautiful from the scientific stand-point, but it is based upon a simple hypothesis; and a hypothesis is not a proof; and here I wish not to be misunderstood. Even if the physical and intellectual development and perfection of humanity throughout the succession of thousands of centuries is a fact, there is no authority for the inference that, eo ipso, a monkey-nest was the cradle of man kind. "Darwin's treatise on the variation of species gave rise to the ardent controversy of our days. Darwin used the wrong word. It is not species' he ought to have said, but 'varieties; for species never interbreed with each other. Man and monkey, though belonging to the same group, represent two distinct species. There is, consequently, a simple and irrefragable natural law refuting peremptorily the thesis of the enthusiastic propugnators of the pedigree rooting somewhere amid a grinning tribe gambolling in the wild forests of Asia or Africa. The criterion that the human race has large, round hands, and blunt, canine teeth would be sufficient of itself to establish the truth that no monkey-blood is pulsating in our veins. But there are more distinctive features. Men have strong, well-shaped legs, walk constantly in an erect posture, and enjoy the faculty of speech. "The monkeys rank near humanity in the general organization of the world; they show in many instances much likeness with mankind, physically as well as intellectually. But a further concession would be a denial of positive natural laws. Nay; old Adam was not a monkey, not a baboon, not even a chimpanzee!” This declaration of Dr. Brehm will be considered scientific scepticism. But do we not sadly need more of this kind of scepticism? It is curious to observe, however, that those most impatient with this kind of scepticism are accustomed HECKEL AND HUXLEY. 139 to compliment other kinds of scepticism with the name of philosophical inquiry. In one respect Hæckel differs widely from Mr. Huxley. With Huxley scientific scepticism is a duty. He says, in substance, "compel assent if you can," or compel me to receive the proposed hypothesis if you can, and I will receive it. But Hæckel says of Darwin's Theory of Descent ("Hist. of Creation," p. 28): "In any case we are in duty bound to accept this theory till a better one be found which will undertake to explain the same amount of facts in an equally simple Until now we have been in utter want of such a theory." And, further, when he wishes to show that there is no necessity for supposing that there was an original Creator, he says: "It cannot fail to appear, in the light of the Doctrine of Descent, no longer as the ingeniously designed work of a Creator building up according to a definite purpose, but as the necessary consequence of active causes which are inherent in the chemical combination of matter itself, and in its physical properties." (p. 27, "Hist. of Creation.") manner. How has the doctor or any one else learned that these "active causes which are inherent in the chemical combination of matter itself” are naturally "inherent?" How does he know that these "inherent" qualities are not the agencies of the very Creator he would so summarily dispense with? It is easy for most men to believe what they really wish to believe. CHAPTER VI. THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE. THE question whether there is a designing intelligence behind the phenomena which we observe in nature will continually meet us. Does the material universe (as well as the entire list of animals) exhibit itself so unskilfully and clumsily constituted that its construction is disgraceful to or unworthy of a designing intelligence? Is it because all nature is so poorly arranged for intended purposes that a certain class of writers must attribute its existence to blind, unconscious, purposeless forces, or to necessity? Because we can see no evidence of design in certain things which exist, shall we assume that the many apparent evidences of design are all deceptive? This raises questions concerning the connection between mind and matter, and concerning their dependence on or independence of each other: whether mind is dependent upon matter for its existence, or whether mind existed prior to or can exist independent of matter. Is it reasonable to suppose that the mind, which moulds matter according to its purposes, which uses matter as it wills, to which all matter is subject, can be itself subject to material laws, and itself the child of matter? Like begets like: can intelligence spring from a source which is not itself intelligent, or from something having a less intellectual nature than an intelligent being? Can in |