hands that socially, morally, religiously, and historically, men and apes are generically distinct. But this distinction as matter of fact either involves a generic distinction between the physiological structure of men and apes, or it does not. If it does, then Mr. Huxley's theory is disproved by the fact; and man is not "in substance and in structure one with the brutes." If it does not, then "the cause of this distinction must be looked for elsewhere, and science will have to admit that in man there is an immaterial element which physiology cannot grasp," an element adequate to his elevation at a height so immeasurably above the rest of the animal world. 16. Nor is it to be forgotten that, even by Prof. Huxley himself, this elevation of man above the ape is regarded comparatively as being not merely "immeasurable," but "practically infinite." "Believing as I do, with Cuvier," he says, "that the possession of articulate speech is the grand distinctive character of man," "the primary cause of the UNMEASURABLE and practically infinite divergence of the Human from the Simian Stirps." 2 By universal consent then, nothing is more 1 "Man's Place in Nature,” p. 103 n. 2 Ibid., p. 103 n. certain than that Man is chiefly characterized by those psychical distinctions which in such treatises as that of Prof. Huxley's now cited, are either left entirely out of view, or dismissed in a passing sentence. "Conscience, remorse, ambition, sense of responsibility, improvableness of reason, immense advances in knowledge, self-cultivation, æsthetical sensibilities-these and other qualities of the Homo sapiens, not to speak of religious sentiments, broadly and plainly distinguish man from all the Simians and Troglodytes. Grant, for a moment, (what is manifestly inconsistent with the previous statement, that the structural differences between man and the highest apes are great and significant') that man is one in substance and structure with these creatures; grant even that their instincts simulate our reason in some remarkable instances; and when all is granted, the vast and varied differences just intimated remain as towering distinctions. To these is added that gift of articulate speech which, though mechanically organized, imparts supreme value to them all; which makes man a communicative being; which gives to a lecturer, such as Professor Huxley, that power to instruct, amuse and illustrate, by which he is raised immeasurably above the cleverest ape that ever climbed a tree, or built a nest, or buried his dead companion under the dried leaves of an African forest." 1 17. As to the alleged ancestry of Man from the brutes, this, then, is certain: "that whether from them or not, he is assuredly not of them." But is he "from them"? He who answers this question in the affirmative affirms what he cannot even pretend to prove. The evidence, such as it is, in every particular, and in the most positive terms, endorses the direct negative of the proposition which on any theory of Ascensive Development it is found necessary to maintain. It is Mr. Darwin himself who tells us of "the great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species.” "The fossil remains of man hitherto discovered," says Professor Huxley, "do not seem to take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form" from which it is conjectured-but only conjectured that he sprang. It is nothing less. than the utter destitution of evidence in support of the unverified "theoretic conception" that constrains even Professor Huxley to ask, "Where then must we look for primæval man ?” 1 The Athenæum, No. 1844, p. 288. "2 18. "In the first place, it is manifest that man, the apes, and the half-apes cannot be arranged in a single ascending series, of which man is the term and culmination. "We may indeed, by selecting one organ or one set of parts, and confining our attention to it, arrange the different forms in a more or less simple manner. But if all the organs be taken into account, the cross relations and interdependencies become in the highest degree complex and difficult to unravel." This indeed is generally admitted, but still the theory propounded by Mr. Darwin, and widely accepted, is that "the resemblances between man and apes are such that man may be conceived to have descended from some ancient members of the broad-breastboned group of apes," and of all existing apes, the gorilla is regarded as standing towards him in closer relationship than any other. But what evidence of common origin is afforded by community of structure? "The human structural characters are shared by so many and such diverse forms, that it is impossible to arrange even groups of genera in a single ascending series from the aye-aye to man 1 "Lessons from Nature," p. 174. By Prof. Mivart. (Murray, 1876.) (to say nothing of so arranging the several single genera), if all the structural resemblances are taken into account. "If the number of wrist-bones be deemed a special mark of affinity between the gorilla, chimpanzee, and man, why are we not to consider it also a special mark of affinity between the indris and man? That it should be so considered, however, would be deemed an absurdity by every evolutionist. "If the proportions of the arms speak in favour of the chimpanzee, why do not the proportions of the legs serve to promote the rank of the gibbons? "If the obliquely-ridged teeth of Simia and Troglodytes point to community of origin, how can we deny a similar community of origin, as thus estimated, to the howling monkeys and galagos ? "The liver of the gibbons proclaims them almost human; that of the gorilla declares him comparatively brutal. "The ear-lobule of the gorilla makes him our cousin; but his tongue is eloquent in his own dispraise. "The slender loris from amidst the half-apes, can put in many a claim to be our shadow refracted, as it were, through a lemurine prism. R |