It is true Professor Haeckel thinks it possible that more than one spontaneous generation of monera may have occurred in different epochs of the earth's history, but that has nothing to do with that one single moneron which was first in the long line of man's ancestors. A hundred thousand individual monera may have spontaneously generated at different ages of the world, and thus have given rise to as many species of monera, but out of all these races one only can be the primeval race through whose chain of successive self-divisions man's lineal descent runs back to some one individual moneron spontaneously generated! It is as impossible for two such spontaneously generated primeval monera to be both the progenitors of the line leading to man as for a child to have two actual fathers or two natal mothers. Whatever the other races of monera, which may have been spontaneously generated, did or may have done, they never did originate a line leading toward a human race, since such a line could occur in its primeval spontaneous start at but one time and in but one place. Hence, we reach the startling and almost paralyzing fact, that, had there been a little stone, no larger than a penny, lying over the exact spot where that first moneron-man's "primeval parent"-was spontaneously generating, no such a marvelous event could have taken place. The race of monera descending from that single head would never have existed, those peculiar variations which some one of its millions of descendants must have developed, and which led on to higher organisms and through them to still higher, could never have occurred, and consequently man would . never have had an existence on earth, nor would any other living creature higher than these "homogeneous" lumps of albumen!

Yes, this great scientist, who would give us a plausible and simple solution of the mighty problem of man's origin, and a consistent, philosophical, natural exposition of "Creation," by linking Kant's Cosmogony with Darwin's Natural Selection, cemented by spontaneous generation,-who would brush aside from the problem the inconsistencies and superstitious puerilities of miraculous intervention on the part of a mythical God,-who would give us a rational conception of man's important relationship to the universe as the intellectual head of all organic beings,-tells us that had a bubble of sea-water burst at one time on the margin of some estuary a thousand million years ago (disconnecting or disturbing the atoms of inorganic matter which had fallen by chance together, and which were accidentally evolving from nothing a grain of mucus, which would, if left undisturbed, be spontaneously generated by an accidental breath of carbon into a certain moneron which was to be the "primeval parent of all other organisms,") then man would never have lived, and there is no powerno intelligence in the universe-capable of correcting the terrible effects of the noiseless explosion of that fatal bubble! Are evolutionists and spontaneous generationists prepared to accept the legitimate and logical consequences of such an array of contingencies, each one of which suspended the existence of the human race by less than a hair? To accept these numberless millions of chances as having actually ex-. isted, on each one of which the destiny of our race was suspended, yet without any one of them having given way or failed to make the connection by which man's exist ence on earth was secured, is a more stupen dous miracle a thousand-fold than was ever believed in by either Christian or Jew.

in the embryos of all reptiles, birds, and mammals; take the undisputed fact of rudimentary organs which are never developed into practical use, found in many animals, such as the incisors or upper front teeth in the embryos of calves, which disappear before birth; and the same thing in the embryos of the whale tribe, where only whalebone is seen in the adult; also, rudimentary leg-bones in the hinder portions of the body of the whale and of the boaconstrictor, which are never perfected into legs, and can only mean, as evolutionists insist, that these animals came by transmutation from other species having those various organs perfect;-take the undeniable fact of reversions, in many species, to the form, color, or structure of others, such as the common dovecote pigeon to the color of the wild-rock pigeon, the horse and mule to the stripes of the zebra or quagga; and the astonishing fact that in a few cases women have been found with supernumerary mammæ in the inguinal region, and also organs normal only to marsupials, such as the double uterus of the kangaroo or opossum,-proving, as Mr. Darwin proclaims, that the human race has descended from these remote mammal ancestors, and that women still retain sufficient marsupial blood in their veins to occasionally cause these reversions! These, in connection with the well-known corroborative facts developed by comparative anatomy, which show that all vertebrate animals, from the lowest fish to man, are built up on the same general plan of structure; and that those nearest related in their anatomical chain or type, such as man and the quadrumana or higher species of the monkey, can scarcely be distinguished from each other; while the paleontologic records show this gradual development from the lower species up toward man by a corresponding grada

geological strata,-all combining, they tell us, to confirm the theory of descent as taught by Darwin.

I here present a few citations which bear directly on the problems referred to. Prof. Haeckel, who is admitted by Mr. Darwin to be one of the highest authorities on the subject, remarks:

"All the phenomena of organic development... and further, the whole history of rudimentary organs are exceedingly important proofs of the truth of the theory of descent. For by it alone can they be explained, whereas its opponents can not even offer a shadow of an explanation of them.”—“I wish especially to draw attention in Plates II. and III., which represent embryos in all stages of development, and in which we are not able to recognize a trace of the full-grown animal. ... Every one surely knows the gill-arches of the fish. . . . Now these gill-arches originally exist exactly the same in man, in dogs, in fowls, and in tortoises, as well as in all other vertebrate animals."

...

"Finally, when comparing the embryos on Plates II. and III., we must not fail to give attention again to the human tail, an organ which in the original condition man shares with all other vertebrate animals. . . . Now man in the first months of development possesses a real tail as well as his nearest kindred, the tailless apes (orang-outang, chimpanzee, gorilla,) and vertebrate animals in general."-"In this intimate connection of ontogeny [resemblance of embryos] and phylogeny [common descent] I see one of the most important and irrefutable proofs of the theory of descent. No one can explain these phenomena unless he has recourse to the laws of inheritance and adaptation; by these alone are they explicable."—"The rudimentary little tail of man is an irrefutable proof of the fact that he is descended from tailed ancestors."— HAECKEL, History of Creation, vol. i., pp. 289,307,308, 310, 314.

I also quote a passage or two from Mr. Darwin, to the same effect:

"It has been shown that generally the embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become when fully developed widely dissimilar."

"Man is developed from an ovule about 125th of an inch in diameter, which differs in no respect from the ovules of other animals. The embryo itself at a very early period can hardly be distinguished from that of other members of the vertebrate kingdom."

"That most wonderful fact in the whole round of natural history, namely, the similarity of members of the same great class in their embryonic condition," &c. . . . "It is the consideration and explanation of such facts as these which has convinced me that the theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection is in the main true. These facts have as yet received no explanation on the theory of independent creations."

[I wonder if Mr. Darwin will become "convinced" the other way when all these facts are taken from him!-Author.]

"No other explanation [than descent from a common progenitor] has ever been given of the marvelous fact that the embryos of the man, dog, seal, bat, reptile, &c., can at first hardly be distinguished from each other."- Descent of Man, pp. 9, 25.Animals and Plants, vol. i., p. 24.- Origin of Species, p. 387.

Now all these things are facts of science admitted by physiologists, naturalists, and anatomists generally; and to ignore them, as heretofore done, in reviewing evolution, and as intimated in the Introduction, is to proclaim their unanswerable character. Is it true, however, that these facts unmistakably point to transmutation from the lower to the higher species?—and is it true that no other possible or conceivable hypothesis can be invented which will rationally solve them? If such be the case, then it is indeed no longer of any use to fight against modern evolution; and Darwin's hypothesis of transmutation by means of natural selection or survival of the fittest must be admitted as a well-grounded scientific theory. If these various facts admit of no explanation, save the one given of them by Darwin and his coadjutors, which will harmonize them with the hypothesis of creation and the consistent order of a system of Nature ordained and operated under the supervision of an infinite and allwise Creator acting with a definite design and purpose, then indeed must man not only have arisen out of the monkey, but must have even developed as the lineal descendant of pouched mammals such as

the didelphys or wombat, and through them from an ancient fish-like ancestor such as a ganoid; and thence further on down his descent can be legitimately traced from the mollusk, or from Haeckel's "primeval parent of all other organisms" —the moneron.

I now undertake, as evolutionists will think, the impossible task of showing, in this and the succeeding chapter, by the most unequivocal scientific proof and authoritative citations, that Darwin's theory of descent by transmutation fails utterly to give a satisfactory or even a possible solution of these facts of science. I propose still further to give a plausible and rational solution of every one of them by an original hypothesis, independently of and in direct opposition to his theory, which not only will comport with known phenomena and scientific laws, but which Darwin will be forced to admit by a similar hypothesis of his own, having not a tithe of the foundation in reason which mine will have.

Should these leading facts and main supports of this great revolutionary theory, which threatens to engulf religion and reconstruct natural science, be swept away, then inevitably the whole superstructure of modern evolution must tumble at the feet of its builder a shapeless ruin.

Preliminary to entering upon this discussion, or attempting a solution of the problems just enumerated, it is essentially important, as the fundamental basis of all explanations, that I lay down and establish immovably the broad principle toward which much of my reasoning in the previous chapters has directly pointed, namely

that the life and mind of every sentient being are substantial entities,-that they are as real and literal substance as are their flesh and blood, though while the latter are corporeal or physical substances the former are incorporeal, and hence intan

gible as to our physical senses. The entire three chapters on Light and Sound, in which I sought to prove those and other forces or so-called modes of motion to be emanations of real and substantial corpuscles, were intended principally to establish the great truth that the life and mind may be none the less substantial because they are beyond the grasp of our sensuous recognition. If those chapters really proved Sound, for example, to consist of corpuscular emanations, as I assume the reader now admits, instead of it being a mere undulatory motion of the air or other conducting media, then all difficulty would seem to have vanished from the problem of admitting that life and mind may be substantial entities wherever found, rather than the mere motions of the molecules of the brain combined and operated in a "varied manner," as assumed by Professor Haeckel.

While those arguments paved the way to this conclusion, rendering the assumption of the substantial nature of life and mind probable and every way reasonable, the arguments which are to follow in these chapters will demonstrate, beyond the possibility of doubt, the entire correctness of that view, by showing in numerous instances that no other possible hypothesis will explain many well-known phenomena and scientific facts, and thus a clear foundation will be established for the solution of all the problems raised by Darwin, without resorting to the impossible supposition of descent by transmutation from lower nimals.

REVERSIONARY ACTION.

It matters little which one of the great problems shall be taken up first, as they are all treated in essentially the same manner by Darwin and lead to the same result, namely, that man has descended from the lower animals-even the very lowest-by an unbroken line of blood relationship.

But the principle of reversion by which a long lost structure is called back into existence, might serve as the guide for its full development even after the lapse of an enormous interval of time."—"These several reversionary structures, as well as the strictly rudimentary ones, reveal the descent of man from some lower form in an unmistakable manner.”—“In one instance a woman (the daughter of another with supernumerary mamma), had one mamma which yielded milk developed in the inguinal region. This latter case, when we remember the position of the mammæ in some of the lower animals on both the chest and inguinal region is highly remarkable, and leads to the belief that in all cases the additional mammæ in women are due to reversion."

"This principle of reversion is the most wonderful of all the attributes of inheritance. ... What can

...

be more wonderful than that characters which have disappeared during scores or hundreds or even thousands of generations, should suddenly re-appear perfectly developed? . . . We are led to believe, as formerly explained, that every character which occasionally re-appears is present in a latent form in each generation. In every living creature, we may feel assured, that a host of lost characters lie ready to be evolved, under proper conditions.""Reversion, in the ordinary sense of the word, comes into action so incessantly, that it evidently forms an essential part of the general law of inheritance.” -Descent of Man, pp. 39,43.—Animals and Plants, vol. ii., pp. 76, 446, 447, 478.

Before suggesting any hypothesis for the solution of this problem of so-called reversionary action, I wish distinctly to point out to the reader, as before proposed, the utter impossibility of it being caused in the manner claimed for it by Darwin-through a small remnant of the blood or of the physical nature of a distant ancestor retained