to Darwin's "natural selection," or "selective modification,' as the only propounded "physical causation," which has “any scientific existence." P. 125. He admits his want of knowledge that the "genera and families of ordinary animals" and plants, are produced by any such cause. Besides "structural distinctions" in plants and animals, he sees that they "exhibit physiological characters," so that they are "either altogether incompetent to breed one with another; or, if they breed, the resulting mule, or hybrid, is unable to perpetuate its race with another hybrid of the same kind." P. 126.

This great fact in favour of original and distinct species, Professor Huxley admits, and declares that his "acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be provisional, so long as one link in the chain of evidence is wanting;" and "that link will be wanting," till there is "proof that physiological species may be produced by selective breeding." P. 128. He knew not any such instances; no one has known them.

Considering the position of Professor Huxley and his strong proclivities towards the adoption of "selective modification," his belief in the paucity of hybrids, and in the non-existence of fertile hybrids, deserves high consideration; it is the admission of convincing argument over a reluctant mind. This unbelief in the fertility of hybrids is doubtless well founded and correct. How few, if any, are known to be fertile, compared with those not hybridous. How few real hybrids are known to exist. Even Dr. Morton, in his article in favour of Hybridism* in animals and plants, admits "that hybrids, as a general law, are contrary to nature." He quotes with approbation the language of Pritchard, "that there is in nature some principle, which prevents the intermixture of species, and maintains the order and variety of the animal creation." This is the "physiological character," or, as Pritchard calls it, "a natural repugnance." Dr. Morton also says that barrenness "is usually the case with mules," meaning hybrids, and asserts "that domestication evolves the faculty of hybridity." Of this point Professor Agassiz has lately said, "the experiments upon domesticated animals and cultivated plants, are entirely foreign

*Silliman's Journal, vol. iii., 1847, May and July.

to the matter in hand, since the varieties thus brought about by the fostering care of man are of an entirely different character from those observed among wild species.'

But, after all the progress in zoölogy and comparative anatomy, how little has been learned on points of organism which solve the mysteries of our birth and growth, and the activities of our minds. What has the dissecting knife, the analysis of the chemist, or the microscope, revealed to us of that constitution of the brain which fits it to be the organ of mind. Professor Huxley shows some of the differences and resemblances in the form and sections of the brain of man and the apes; that both have all the great, and some subordinate divisions of the brain, as well as other points of interest; but, on what constitution of the brain it is, that the one belongs to the ape and developes its powers, and moves the interests centering in a tree or den, and the other is fitted for him whose intellect and heart move nations and convulse the world, he has made no discovery, and even excludes them from his system. Professor Huxley also states, that "the mode of origin and the early stages of the development of man are identical with those of the animals immediately below him in the scale," p. 83, and he might have added those considerably removed from him; yet, who has discovered on what organic constitution it is that the egg of the bee becomes only a bee, that of the fly changes into a fly, that of the dog producing a dog, that of the ape only an ape of that particular tribe and species, and that of a man is developed only into a man. Here is a law of production after its kind, constant and universal as the law of gravitation. The cause for wonder increases with the knowledge that the general structure of the eggs of the higher animals at least is precisely the same, and that the nascent young cannot early be recognised, not indeed till the tissues begin to take on their special form. These facts are thus presented by Professor Huxley; that the nascent chick, "at one stage of its existence, is so like the nascent dog, that ordinary inspection would hardly distinguish the two," and that in a more early stage this distinction is impossible; or, as he states,

* Method of Study, &c., p. v., 1863.

"it is very long before the body of the young human being can be readily discriminated from that of the young puppy."

This will satisfy the careful student of nature, as in the case of the brain, that an unerring Power has planned these works, and is moving onward their operations according to his purpose of manifesting his wisdom and goodness through his works; that not mere matter is engaged in the causes and changes, but that the Infinite is thus revealing himself to the finite mind.

The human brain may be the larger, to indicate the higher powers of its possessor, and it may be of finer structure also, adapted to the nobler psychical characters of the man. Thus we come to that organization in the vegetable, through which it is nourished and propagates its species: to that organism in the animal, of a higher structure, to which is added the power of sensation and voluntary motion, and many other adjunct properties belonging to the mere animal; and to that organization in man in which we find these two previous endowments associated with another of a purer and more exalted kind, the moral sense, and the appreciation of Infinite goodness. From the last two, it is certain there is a radical difference between man and the ape, or any brute. Though Professor Huxley admits this fact, in the "immeasurable and practically infinite divergence" of man from the ape, he maintains there is no structural difference to account for it, or to lay a foundation for it, while he ought, on the admission, to separate man from the other Primates, and allot the far higher place to man.

Finally, Professor Huxley is aware of the "repugnance with which the majority" of men do and will "meet the conclusions" to which he has honestly come, and which they honestly oppose and reject. This "repugnance" is well founded, and highly honours our race. It is because men in general see in others the exercise, and are conscious in themselves of the possession, of powers intellectual and moral, ever shown by man, but of which they have never known the least indication in the whole range of brutes, whatever the structures may be, or to whatever extent these may agree or differ. Though some animals may be trained to perform surprising acts, they still are brutes, and continue to be brutes; the chasm

remains in all its immensity, established in the constitution of things, palpable, and has its parallel in things equally well known. There is a great chasm between inorganic and organic matter. They do not come into the same category. The chasm is still greater between vegetable and animal peculiar properties. Between the mere animal life and the human soul the chasm is yet wider and deeper. Men feel it in that moral power, in particular, which they never see in the brute. "We are men and women," and not brutes, because we are moral beings, separated from the brute by an immeasurable distance both in quality and in kind of powers. This repugnance must exist; the reason and the conscience sustain it. Give to each, man and brute, its own proper place, as the Creator has shown in his works. This is the nearly universal demand, because it is the voice of God in the consciousness of men. Often as the false philosophy occurs and bewilders some minds, the chasm is seen and felt, and men stop before the yawning gulf. The battle is fought; the victory is won. In view of such an animal origin of man, which was held by some long ago, Owen quotes Sir Henry More as writing in 1662: "It is sufficient for a good man that he is conscious unto himself that he is more nobly descended, better bred and born, and more skilfully taught by the purged faculties of his own minde."

ART. IV.-The Thoughts of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Translated by GEORGE LONG. Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1864.

THIS volume allows us the privilege of protracted and leisurely interviews with a very remarkable man; and one placed in such circumstances that what he has to say is of much more than common interest. Our visitor is nothing less than a Roman Emperor, of the second century of the Christian era, while Rome was still mistress of the world, and at the same time blessed with the highest civilization and knowledge that men had ever attained. Greece had gone before, with her

literature, her science, her lofty speculations, and her beautiful arts. The human mind had been vigorously applied to the great questions that naturally present themselves to men not favoured with divine revelation duly authenticated, and had done as much toward their solution as could be justly hoped from mere reason in our fallen estate. Homer had sung, Herodotus had appeared as the father of history, Socrates had discussed almost every topic of prudence and wisdom in the conduct of life, Plato had soared into the highest regions of speculation, Aristotle had taught the art of formal reasoning, and established many truths of natural science, and Demosthenes had exhibited the loftiest powers of rhetoric; while many lesser lights had reflected and further displayed the brightness of these chief luminaries of the intellectual world. The treasures thus accumulated had become the inheritance of Rome, and were enjoyed as such in the time of this Antoninus, to a participation of whose best and deepest thoughts we are now so freely invited.

Of the Emperor himself, Gibbon thus speaks, in a few lines which we may safely quote.

After his sketch of the character of Antoninus Pius he remarks: "The virtue of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus was of a severer and more laborious kind. It was the well-earned harvest of many a learned conference, of many a patient lecture, and many a midnight lucubration. At the age of twelve years he embraced the rigid system of the Stoics, which taught him to submit his body to his mind, his passions to his reason; to consider virtue as the only good, vice as the only evil, all things external as things indifferent. His meditations, composed in the tumult of a camp, are still extant; and he even condescended to give lessons of philosophy, in a more public manner than was perhaps consistent with the modesty of a sage, or the dignity of an emperor.* But his life was the noblest commentary on the precepts of Zeno. He was severe to himself, indulgent to the imperfections of others, just and

"Before he went on the second expedition against the Germans, he read lectures of philosophy to the Roman people, during three days. He had already done the same in the cities of Greece and Asia. Hist. Aug. in Cassio, c. 3." (Gibbon.)