Christian anthropology
LD •LT) r^m nuna i ' / C. , .•-.Ml 1 Ul 7<H ' <• ^ 4l. t.1 •" S- ^*»i 2^*^. • ..v.v.v •w v.rt»; "* [» */ • I •ft Kx Lmuis ^ (TanUn^ (Tarhrrrij | I wirtfi &ZCSAG-7 • W*« ^&j% •^ %' * * ^W '&* - ^ 385*^, \ '* t tn - -^"'». tf. fe^ AV CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOID Rev. JOHX THKIN Pastor of St. Martins Church, Liverpool, O. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY PROF. CHAS. G. HERBERMAXX, PH.D., LL.D. NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO BENZIGER BROTHERS 1892 COPYRIGHT. 1892, BY BENZIGER BROTHERS. INTRODUCTION. THE Church has taught for ages that between the truths of revelation and the truths of science there can be no con flict. The Vatican Council has solemnly repeated this teach ing. On the other hand some men famed for scientific learn ing and some famed for unscientific bluster proclaim that between faith and science no reconciliation is possible. Educated Catholics may well ask, How are such assertions possible? Still it is not hard to find the explanation. If we could ascertain at once what are the truths of science and what are the truths of revelation their comparison would end the controversy. But what are the truths of science? Science has no infallible mouthpiece. The ablest and sin- cerest men of science may be mistaken. Generations of scientists have fought in defence of error. For hundreds of years they taught that the sun moves and the earth is at rest. For centuries they spoke of heat and light as impon derable substances. Linnaeus taught that species were immu table ; Lamarck, the contrary. Cuvier, Von Baer, and Agassiz returned to the teaching of Linnaeus, and now Darwin and Haeckel, reviving the views of Lamarck, proclaim the mutability of species. Who is right? Linnaeus or Lamarck? Cuvier or Haeckel? When does a scientific theory become a scientific theorem, a scientific truth? Can one great name safeguard us against error? There is not a distinguished 4 INTRODUCTION. scientist alive who will say in cold blood, "I cannot err." Is the consensus of all men of science a guarantee that their teaching is scientific truth? The history of Ptolemy's theory bids us be prudent in our answer. Surely it is more than hazardous to maintain that a theory or view against which are raised some of the weightiest voices in science is, without possibility of error, the scientific truth. And what are the truths of revelation? Some scientific oracles, not content with defining the truths of science, insist upon defining for us the truths of religion. No doubt they are very kind; but really we must decline their Grecian gifts. We look to the Church to tell us what are revealed truths. Reasonable men will find this reasonable. When the Church has spoken, we know what revealed truth is. But there are hundreds of opinions on dogma and morals which the Church has neither approved nor condemned ; there are thousands of Biblical texts the meaning of which she has not defined. To be sure, we have the opinions of theolo gians, we have what is called the received interpretation of the Scriptures, which is often but another word for theological opinion. But the views of theologians, however learned and holy, are not, of necessity, revealed truths. For scholars, who are not controversial scientists, it is not always easy to decide what are the truths of revelation. Since, then, it is neither easy to find the truths of science nor to find the truths of revelation in every case, it follows that it is difficult to compare them with each other. The pru dent scholar, therefore, will not commit himself hastily to the proposition that there is between them an irrepressible con flict. Where religion and science seem to be at variance — and during the past half century scientists (not science) have propounded many views seemingly at variance with Script- INTRODUCTION. 5 ure — he will first ascertain whether the dicta of scientists are the truths of science, and next whether the assumed meaning -of the Bible has been officially set forth by the Church. The former he will ascertain by inquiring whether the views in question are unanimously held by all reputable authorities in science or whether weighty voices are raised in contradic tion; the latter he will easily ascertain by an appeal to Church History. If he finds that the Church has defined nothing in the premises, he may examine what is the most probable and the best supported theological opinion. Father Thein, in the present work, has followed the pru dent, reasonable method we have just sketched. He has been an enthusiastic student of science, deeply interested in its progress. To anthropology above all — the science of man — he has given years of study and research. With patient toil and vigilant eye he has delved in biological, geological, and archaeological books and periodicals for what ever could throw light on the nature, the origin, and the early history of man. At the same time he has never lost sight of the teachings of Scripture and the Church. But Father Thein never saw the irreconcilable conflict between science and religion which some writers see all around them. In his book he offers to us the fruits of his studies. He sets down the most important facts and theories in modern anthropology. He constantly cites the great masters of anthropological science. He discusses the views of modern thinkers, frequently by laying before the reader the diver gent opinions of other thinkers of acknowledged merit. He gives title and page for his references. Thus, while freely giving his own opinion on the points at issue, he enables the reader to judge for himself what is and what is not demonstrated scientific truth. O INTRODUCTION. Father Thein's presentation of the theological side of the controversy is safe and conservative. It is based on the writings of such authorities as the Abbe Vigouroux, Professor Hettinger, the Jesuits Pianciani, Brucker, Comely, Knaben- bauer, Hummelauer, and other contributors to the " Stim- men aus Maria- Laach," " La Controverse, " and the " Revue des Questions Scientifiques. " Though the reader may not in every instance agree with the author's judgments, Thein's " Christian Anthropology " is a mine of information, eminently useful to educated Catholics. It is a store-house of knowledge on every- day questions of scientifico-religious controversy, and a monu ment of learning, of study, and of research. CHARLES GEORGE HERBERMANN. PREFACE. THE condition of the world to-day is known. Everywhere we see infidelity rising up against God's revelation weapons which in former centuries were shattered and rei dered useless, are diligently searched for in the rums of past and are refurbished with new phrases and shibboleths, in order to be employed once more in the warfare agamsi Christianity. New objections are invented against the Chris tian religion. Men of science dig into the depths of the earth, and into the history of all times and nations, to find new weapons against Christ's Church. What history does not furnish is supplied by falsehood and misrepresentation. The Sacred Scriptures have been the special target of infi delity It is against them that rationalistic criticism directs the full force of its efforts. This has been the case since the foundation of the Church. From the moment paganism t came acquainted with them it ridiculed them. Apion, the grammarian, mocked them in Egypt, and an unknown painter derided them at Pompeii.1 After the religion of Christ had gained its first victories the attacks increased; at the present hour they are numberless, and the Bible for many is nothing but a heap of contemptible fables. Christianity is c to be a tissue of absurdities. The scientific arguments against the Scriptures, formerly rare and without much weight, have grown more numerous and important in our days, on account of the extraordinary progress of science. The adversaries of Holy Scripture c ' In 1883 there was discovered at Pompeii a caricature of the Judgment of Solomon, related in the Third Book of Kings, iii. 26, 27. PREFACE. play and develop them, in order to break down both Faith and Revelation. In the name of geology, they attack the Biblical account of the creation of the world, pretending that it is irreconcilable with geological discoveries; in the name of astronomy, they maintain that Moses and other inspired writers attribute to the earth a role in the universe to which it has no rightful claim ; in the name of paleontology, they strive to remove the origin of our globe and of man far beyond the limits hitherto assigned to them ; in the name of natural history, they charge the Sacred Scriptures with many errors. The foregoing lines characterize in general the spirit of the modern materialistic and rationalistic schools. Entirely imbued with this spirit, the men belonging to these schools were forced by the logic of their principles to degrade man to a mere animal, to "the first among the anthropoids." Man, according to the modern evolutionary theory ad vanced by the school of Haeckel, is a purely chemical prod uct of matter, of atoms; his soul is only the activity of the nerves and the brain. Like the rest of the world, man's existence has really no aim or purpose — " his origin is from the morass, he is wading for a short while in the morass, and again will become part of the morass." Such is the morassy circle of man's destination. The summary of the material istic doctrine is this: Between man and the irrational animal there is no essential difference — man is simply a more hap pily organized animal; he differs from the animal not in kind, but in degree. The human soul is a temporary quality of the brain, a result of man's development; it has no sub stantial existence. Between the reason of man and the instinct of the animal there is no essential difference, but merely a difference of degree; man, like the animal, is the sum of corporal dispositions and external influences; hence the spiritual life of the individual is absolutely, completely, and eternally annihilated by death. This is the highest wisdom of modern materialistic anthropology ! Karl Vogt, the Professor of Geneva, cries out: "Let any man werthrow this doctrine if he can ! " PREFACE. 9 Well, though we may not succeed in refuting all its details, we will show, at least, its inward groundlessness. Professor Huxley, borrowing from the inspired Book, which he rejects, one of its most striking figures, seems to pity those who " waste their lives in wishing to put the new and generous wine of science into the old utricles of Judaism." But we can assure Mr. Huxley, and prove to him, that the new wine of science, noble and generous as it may be, will keep just as well, yea, much better, in the old utricles of Judaism than in his own utricles or in those of his adherents. For these old Jewish utricles have become, by a Testament, in good and due form, the utricles of Christianism ; and just as the tumultuous waters of the ocean will be maintained i'n their old bed, which the hand of God has dug for them, so also will "the new wine of science," with all the immense progress of the natural sciences, be kept safe and pure in the utricles of the New Testament of Christianity. Our book is entitled "Christian Anthropology," in contra distinction to materialistic anthropology. The latter stands in direct opposition to the former, and is not bounded by the same horizon, and has not the same extent. The nar row, smothering, and often unhealthy dimensions of a theatre are sufficient for materialistic anthropology. It is an isolated branch of zoology — a chapter taken from natural history. Observation, material experiments, manipulation, the scal pel, the microscope, statistics, measurements of the skull and the skeleton — this is all. In it there is no question of a soul, and the name of God is not even mentioned. The physical, physiological, and pathological characters of man, the viscera, the muscles, the bones, are counted, and labelled with a flourish ; not even a convolution of the brain, a deformation of its bony envelope, is omitted ; all are minutely described. To materialistic anthropology man is the human animal, with patterns for all races and for all countries. This constitutes its entire science, and from this is drawn a con clusion worthy of its premises: "Man is a mammal, whose organization, needs, sicknesses are most complicated.; an animal whose brain and wonderful functions have attained 10 PREFACE. the highest degree of development. As such, he is subject to the same laws as the rest of animals; as such, he also shares their fate." Christian anthropology, on the contrary, embraces the en tire man, the soul as well as the body. It notes the great difference between man and the beast ; it considers his intel lectual and moral qualities as well as his anatomical and physiological characters, and, therefore, man's origin, nature, place in creation, antiquity, unity, immortality, future life. Such is the complete plan of our "Christian Anthropology. " Who will dispute the importance of the above questions?— questions so much and often so vehemently discussed in our days? questions the importance of which our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIII., so well understands when he writes: " The times in which we live require a knowledge which embraces not only the sacred sciences, but also the philosoph ical sciences, enriched by physical and historical discov eries. . . . For the philosophical sciences our Encyclical Letter ' sEterni Pain's' has pointed the road and the correct method. A great number of eminent minds have made beautiful and fruitful discoveries ; it becomes us the less to ignore them, as unbelievers make use of this daily prog ress in order to forge arms against the truths of revelation. Therefore, he who defends the Faith must devote himself to the study of the natural sciences more than in the past " (Encyc. Letter, Feb. 15, 1882). Our late Plenary Council of Baltimore enjoins the same duty. The above words are especially addressed to the priest, .but where is the layman, the student, or the professional man who should not feel sufficiently interested in these questions to acquaint himself more or less with the scientific subjects so often brought before him? Where is the man who is not likely to meet them every day, at every step, in a book, in a periodical, in a newspaper, in society, on his travels, in his ordinary relations with the world, even in the bosom of his own family? Questions, assertions, denials formulated in big-sounding words, accredited more or less by those whom the world calls " savants. " Questions which, alas! only too often PREFACE. I I are likely to trouble and to destroy his belief, the peace of his heart. But it is especially the priest who should possess a more or less thorough knowledge of these scientific subjects, which are so often and so vigorously debated nowadays. Difficul ties, arguments on a new discovery, on scientific phenomena, against revealed truth, present themselves sooner or later to every priest in the exercise of his ministry; they are propagated in books with high-sounding titles, in cheap and popular reviews and magazines; by swarms of demi- savants, or even by children who frequent the schools ; they may come up at any moment, perhaps unconsciously, in the bosom of Christian families or even in a lesson of the Catechism. Nowadays the priest who knows only his dogmatic and moral theology may be surprised and confounded by objec-* tions formulated in entirely new language, supported by pre tended fact or by a discovery wrongly interpreted. If a priest is ignorant or little acquainted with the weapons and methods modern men of science make use of to break down and destroy the Christian religion, he must not be astonished that his theology, his scholastic methods of argumentation, are not always sufficient to remove the uncertainty of the victim of pseudo-scientific fascination, who comes to him with his doubts and his cruel anxieties. The ordinary Christian may perhaps be able to rest content without inquiry and study ; he may hold fast in simplicity and in faith to the teaching of his Church, and may not suffer himself to be shaken in his belief by all the objections of human science ; but deliberate ignorance would be sinful in a theologian and priest, and worthy of blame in one who wishes to be considered a man of education. Again, it is impossible for theology to maintain her rank as queen among the sciences if she proudly or timidly isolates herself. She may, indeed, keep her royal rank, but what avails a royalty which is acknowledged by no subject? Religion has suffered immensely, and faith is completely extinct in many, because they read infidel and rationalistic 12 PREFACE. literature, and because there are none to instruct them in the truth. Do we exaggerate? Is our assertion unfounded? If the optimist could step outside of his sphere and throw a glance at the inside of the materialistic camp, he would soon convince himself of the necessity of studying the schemes and doings of the men who triumphantly cry out that " astron omy takes the roof from over the head and geology the ground from under the feet of the old faith ; " who describe the dis coveries in the sphere of natural science in particular as " the knell of the Mosaic cosmogony; " who tell us that the Bibli cal accounts, especially that of the creation of the earth and man, are "senseless" and a "lie." If such an optimist should look a little more closely and descend into the inferior regions of the intellectual and doc trinal revolution, his discoveries would be no less striking, no less alarming. The freethinkers of the factory, of the work shop, have also their logic, and a brutal logic it is. The materialistic doctrines of our time have torn from their hearts the belief in a God, their faith in a heaven and a hell. " Very well," they cry out aloud, " we want our heaven here upon earth. " " Do you want to make man happy? " says one of the materialistic chiefs ; " go to the source of all happi ness, of all pleasures — to the senses. " " We do not want self- denial," says another; "all we want is enjoyment, nymph- dances, nectar and ambrosia ! If the world had never believed in a God, how much happier would it be ! " " They speak to us about heaven," says a third one, "about a future life; science has proved that there is no such thing, that it is an idle fancy, an illusion, and a lie. We do not want heaven ; we do not want a future life. All we want is hell, with all the voluptuousness that precedes it." In the face of such doc trines it would be sinful and criminal to remain idle, to look on. It is the duty of all, but especially of the priest, to inquire into the remedy that may help to stem the tide of infidelity. Unfortunately, our English Catholic literature furnishes us with very few of these remedies ; upon questions of profane science we have hardly any works whereby we could instruct PREFACE. 13 ourselves or others. And what is to be more regretted, perhaps, is the fact that Catholics, as a rule, have little appreciation of this kind of literature. Very few of our Catholic publishers are willing to risk the publishing of a scientific work, even if an author offers his work for nothing. Such works have so limited a sale that the publisher fears to lose money in getting out the book. With regard to this point, non-Catholic literature is far ahead of us, both in America and Europe. Its publishers have no trouble whatsoever in selling their books. They get out edition after edition, and the public reads them greedily. Unfortunately, many of these works are far from being scien tific, in the true sense of the word. The most of them are more or less saturated with modern rationalism, if not with materialism. While there are still authors who seek to defend Faith and Revelation, the number of scientific writers is very small whose works are free from meddling with religion, as scientific works ought to be, and many an author is so imbued with prejudice that he never fails, when the occasion offers, to aim side-blows at the Church and her doctrine. Certainly this is much to be regretted, for no Catholic can conscientiously read such books. We have tried, as much as possible, to keep the present work free from the faults mentioned. The facts stated herein are not mere assertions, but are based upon empirical knowledge. The reader will find that we quote authors of different nationalities and creeds — Catholics and non-Catho lics, rationalists and materialists. Our sole aim is to com bat the errors and the false doctrines of the two latter schools, to defend Faith and Revelation against modern rationalism and materialism. For this purpose we do not rely so much on our own arguments as on those of authors who can speak with professional authority. In fact, the details of the subjects developed in this book have been drawn from standard and, mostly, recent works; from authors who have studied and written on the subjects herein treated. If we have not always given proper credit, we beg the author's indulgence. 14 PREFACE. In conclusion, we beg leave to say that if this book prove a source wherein the Catholic, but especially my brother priests, can find something- wherewith to stem the tide of infidelity, I shall feel happy; if it give rest to some souls or restore the peace of their heart, troubled by false science, I shall consider this as my greatest earthly reward for the many hours and years spent on this work. THE AUTHOR. CONTENTS. PAGE INTRODUCTION, . 3 PREFACE, . - 7 TABLE SHOWING THE SUCCESSIVE APPEARANCE OF LIVING THINGS IN SUCCESSIVE GEOLOGICAL PERIODS, . . 23 CHAPTER I. ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. The teaching of Faith and Revelation on the origin of life. — Can science answer this question? — Spontaneous gen eration. Its history. — There is no spontaneous generation.— Experiments by Pasteur and others.— Was the first living germ brought upon earth by an aerolite? — Monism. — Did th " moneron" of Professor Haeckel ever exist? — The famo ' Bathybius. — Experiment by Professor Moebius. — Huxley the Congress of the British Association.— Observations Milne-Edwards and John Murray.— Haeckel defends a 1 o1 cause.— Monism in flagrant contradiction to experimenta ^ method and scientific evidence. — Conclusion 27 CHAPTER II. DARWINISM AND MONISM. Positive science and the development of life. — Success ive and progressive Evolution. — The system of Darwin and Haeckel. — Darwin's book on the " Origin of Species."— Crit icism of Darwinism. — Darwinism restricted within certain limits is not necessarily in conflict with the Bible. — How ever, it is an anti-Genesis in its tendencies.— Definition of 1 6 CONTENTS. PAGE Germs, Species, and Variety. — Variability is limited. — It never touches what is essential in the species. — Embry ology. — Comparative anatomy. — Rudimentary organs. — Atavism. — "Natural selection" does not explain what it pretends to explain. — Both geology and paleontology confirm the permanency of species. — Neither the flora nor the fauna have changed.— Acknowledgment of Huxley. — Hybridiza tion.— Hybrids do not perpetuate themselves. — Species are unchangeable. — The breeder and the florist may produce varieties, but God alone can create species. — Account and criticism of Haeckelianism. — Comparison with Darwinism. — Monism incapable of establishing the filiation of species and the origin of man. — The truth victorious 55 CHAPTER III. ORIGIN OF MAN. What is man? — Whence does he come? — Different meth ods followed to arrive at the knowledge of man. — Man's ori gin and nature. — Teachings of Faith. — Scientific certainties. —Harmony between Faith and true science. — Pseudo-scien tific systems. — Man's immediate ancestor. — Professor Mi- vart's theory. — Can it be maintained? — Conclusion. . . . in CHAPTER IV. MAN AND BEAST. Is man merely a perfected animal? — Darwin's " struggle for life." — How does it correspond with the wisdom, order, and omnipotent power of God? — The assumed change of inferior species into superior ones, by the struggle for life, does not explain their origin. — It is impossible to explain the origin of man from an ape by the struggle for life. — How did the. last monkey acquire the faculty of thinking, speaking, walking on two legs, etc. ? — No trace of a higher development is found in any animal species. — If species changed in former times, why does this not happen in his torical times? — Darwin's " struggle for life" is purely imagi nary 135 CONTENTS. I 7 CHAPTER V. MAN AND BEAST. — Continued. PAGE The structure of man and that of the ape. — Two kinds of distinctive characters. — Physical characters. — The head.— The brain.— The foot and the hand.— Bodily development.— Rudimentary formations. — Embryological development.— Universality. — Senses. — Psychological characters.— Reason. Liberty.— Language. — Results of language. — Genius.— The Tasmanians. — Sense of shame. — Conclusion 150 CHAPTER VI. MAN AND BEAST. — Concluded. Instinct and intelligence.— Difference between the in telligence of man and that of the animal. — Objections and answers. — The animal has passions and affections like man.- Man is not the only animal that can speak. — Self-conscious ness. — Individuality. — Abstraction. — Belief in God.- Sense of beauty.— Moral sentiment. — Destructive criticism of Darwinism by Professor Virchow 182 CHAPTER VII. THE STATE OF PRIMITIVE MAN. Infidelity and the state of primitive man. — Man's primi tive state was not a state of savagery. — His state is one of degradation and degeneration.— Savages in Europe during the last century.— The Fuegeans. — The Veddahs of Ceylon. Andamans. —Hottentots. — Bushmen. — Shameless exagger ations. A people in the mere natural state discovered nowhere. — The paradisiac state arid original happiness men tioned in the myths of all the nations. — Civilization in Asia when barbarism prevailed over Europe. — Really progress ive development possible only through Christianity. — Man could not rise by his own powers from the state of savagery or from that of a helpless child to higher perfection.— It was unworthy of God to place man in the world a savage or a harmless child. — Only materialists believe this 206 1 8 CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. PAGE The antiquity of man and modern chronologists.' — Are their calculations reconcilable with the accounts given by Genesis? — The genealogical tables. — Three lessons. — Conse quences resulting from Biblical chronology. — Impossibility of fixing the date of man's creation. — Mankind very probably over 8000 years old. — New difficulty. — Supposed omissions in the genealogical tables. — Proofs of this supposition. — Admitting such omissions, mankind dates back more than 8000 years. — The ten Chaldean antediluvian kings. — The value of the Chaldean sar. — Tabular view. — Theory of P. Bourdais. — Conclusion v 233 CHAPTER IX. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND GEOLOGY. The claims ^of science. —Antiquity of man according to geology. — Alluvions. — Peat-moors. — Stalagmites. — Anti quity of man according to physical geography. — Antiquity of man as inferred from climatic changes. — These changes are exaggerated. — Valuable hints from ancient writers. — Anti quity of man as indicated by changes in the fauna. — Alleged prehistoric animals. — We cannot draw a line between the age of the mammoth and that of the reindeer. — Man contemporary with many extinct animals.— Tertiary and quaternary man. —The age of the acerotherium, halitherium, and elephas meridionalis. — Quaternary man. — What is tertiary and what is quaternary? — Powerful catastrophes. — Antiquity of man judged by the progress of his industry. — Five types of prim itive man. — The ages of stone, bronze, and iron are not consecutive. — No necessity of extra-scientific hypotheses.— Conclusion * 255 CONTENTS. CHAPTER X. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGIES OF INDIA, CHINA, EGYPT, AND CHALDEA. PAGE Chronology of India. — Its great chronological preten sions are not justified. — Chronology of China. — Facts against the credibility of the Chinese chronology. — Chronology of Egypt. — Increasing difficulties in face of new information from the monuments. — Chief authorities. — Contradictory accounts. — The monumental lists. — Chaldea and Assyria offer more precise chronological figures. — Canons or epony mous lists. — The account from the cylinder of Nabonidos.— If it is correct, even the chronology of the Septuagint is too short. — Conclusion 330 CHAPTER XI. THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. Importance of the subject.— La Peyrere, the inventor of polygenism. — His system. — Criticism. — The Preadamites. — Historical side of the question. — The strongest polygenists are found in the United States. — The polygenists confound races with species. — Influence of climate and heredity. — The classification of the human species is not yet settled. — The influence of climate and heredity upon man's body is un questionable. — Examples. 355 CHAPTER XII. THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. — Continued. Preliminary remarks. — Color of the skin. — Dr.Malpighi's discovery. — Causes of different pigments in races. — Char acter of the hair. — Form of the skull. — Custom of some peo ples to give the skull a certain form. — No part of the human body is more subject to change than the skull. — Causes. — Examples. — Cardinal Wiseman and the first series of gener ations. — Measurements of the skull. — Relation between tal ent and cranial capacity. — Volume of the brain. — Relation 20 CONTENTS. PAGE between intelligence and weight of the brain.— Comparative study of the human skeleton. — Different languages no argu ment against monogenism. — Rapid increase of mankind.— Geographical objections against monogenism. --Origin of the Polynesians. — Of the Americans. — Conclusion 376 CHAPTER XIII. SPECIFIC UNITY OF MANKIND. Preliminary remarks. — Anatomical organization of man. —Inner organs. — Man not confined to one kind of food.— Interracial fecundity.— Examples.— Man a cosmopolite. —All men endowed with intelligence and reason.— All are social beings.— All endued with speech and free-will.— All are re ligious. — American Indians. — Negroes.— Conclusion. . . . 423 CHAPTER XIV. THE DELUGE AND THE TRADITIONS OF MANKIND. Meaning of the word deluge.— The Biblical account of the Deluge of Noe confirmed by universal tradition.— Tra ditions in Asia.— Egypt.— Chaldea.— The account of Berosus. —Its striking resemblance with that of Genesis.— Is Ararat Armenia?— Poem of Izdhubar claimed to be anterior to Abra ham.— Comparison.— Legends of the Deluge among other nations. — Account of the Arameans. — Hindoos. — Iranians.— Aryan races. — American traditions. — Conclusion 436 CHAPTER XV. GEOLOGY AND THE DELUGE. Geology has no facts that are at variance with the tradi tion of the Deluge.— Geological facts.— Erratic rocks.— Bone caves. —Osseous breccias. — Tufaceous limestone. — Geology confirms the Deluge.— Universality of the Deluge.— Three systems.— First, absolute universality. — Second: restricted universality. — This system is not in contradiction with the Sacred Text.— Arguments in its favor.— Important question. CONTENTS. 2 1 PAGE Third: more restricted universality. — The Deluge did not cause the death of certain Mongolian and Ethiopian races. — Can such a view be maintained? — Conclusion 460 CHAPTER XVI. CAUSES OF THE DELUGE. ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS. Why natural science cannot bring serious objections against the Deluge. — Linguistic and zoological objections. — Size of the ark and number of animal species. — Positive experiments. — Re-peopling of the earth by animals. — Causes of the Deluge. — Torrential rains.— Invasion of seas. — Sub terraneous fountains. — Upheavals and depressions. — Combi nation of the different systems.— Conclusion 481 CHAPTER XVII. MAN'S COMPONENT ELEMENTS. THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL. Definitions. — Life. — Life-spring. — Soul.— Organism.— Vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual life. — The highest form of life, the soul, appeals in man.— The essence of the principle of life. — What is an organism?— Without accept ing a soul-principle, we cannot explain organism. — Nature of the human soul. — Teachings of Holy Scripture. — Three steps in the creation of man. — The distinction between the body and the soul and the intimate union of the two clearly expressed in Holy Scripture. — Hebrew psychol ogy.— Man's soul is not a complex of his corporal organs.— Mental diseases prove nothing against the existence of the soul. — From corporal indications no certain conclusions can be drawn on the condition of the soul 496 CHAPTER XVIII. THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL AND ITS FUTURE LIFE. What will be the fate of man's soul after death?— Views of materialists.— Did the Hebrews believe in the immortal ity of the soul? — The Book of Wisdom.— Daniel.— Notions 22 CONTENTS. PAGE the Hebrews had of the soul's duration.— The Chaldeans also, the ancestors of the Hebrews, believed in the immortal ity of the soul. — Funeral customs and burial places. — Proof of the Babylonian belief in another life. — Descent of Ishtar into Hades.— Egyptian belief in another life.— Proofs of the Hebrew belief in the immortality of the soul.— Sheol of the souls. — Belief of other nations. — Etruscans. — Iranians. — Indians. — Greeks. — Romans. —Ancient Germans. — Other nations. — Immortality clearly revealed. — Future life and the idea of God. — What is death? — Nothing can be anni hilated. — Only two things possible with regard to the human soul. — Life the fundamental law of creation. — Without a future life man would be the most lamentable of beings. — Man's destiny from the standpoint of Christian doctrine. —Three factors. — Virtue must be rewarded and vice pun ished. — This world does not sufficiently reward virtue or punish vice. — Conclusion 524 TABLE SHOWING THE SUCCESSIVE APPEARANCE OF LIVING THINGS IN SUCCESSIVE GEOLOGICAL PERIODS. For the better understanding of certain facts treated in this book we give the following table, compiled from the second edition of the "Manual of Paleontology" of Prof. Alleyne Nicholson, one of the greatest living authori ties on ancient life in Great Britain. It shows the succession of plant and animal life in the world as far as at present known. The oldest rocks are naturally placed last, the others in the order of superposition. CENOZOIC, OR NEW LIFE. POST TERTIARY (that is, from the Tertiary up to the present era). — Man, sheep and goats, cave lions, huge kangaroos. PLIOCENE. — Swordfish, walrus, hares. The Tertiary vegetable world (including the rocks to the Eocene) was very much the same as it now is in hot and temperate climates. MIOCENE. — Oxen, elephants, bears, land tortoises (one in India 20 feet long and 7 feet broad), sloths, whales, sperm-whales, dolphins, rhinoceros, tapirs, camels, seals. Beasts of prey abounded. Beavers. Lichens. EOCENE.— Deer. Beasts of prey begin. Dogs, rats, mice, bats, lemurs, animals related to the horse, to the pig, to the tapir, to the whale. Snakes, croco diles. - Mammalia begin to abound. Sturgeon. Frogs and toads, newts and salamanders. Pillworts. 24 TABLE OF GEOLOGICAL PERIODS. MESOZOIC, OR MIDDLE LIFE. CRETACEOUS (CHALK). — Fishes with bony skeletons begin to appear. True sharks, huge lizards (75 feet long in some cases), crocodiles (America), gigantic extinct reptiles of the lias continue. Toothed birds. No mam malia are found as yet in chalk. First certain appear ance of trees like the trees of our own temperate regions — the oak, beech, fig, poplar, walnut, willow, alder, etc. ; also palms. OOLITE, OR JURASSIC (of which lias are the lowest rocks). —Fourteen small mammals found in the upper beds of oolite. A single specimen (the earliest) of a bird. Turtles, lizards. In lias and oolite, gigantic extinct reptiles, the ichthyosaurus, plesiosaurus, megalosau- rus, pterodactyle, and many others in great numbers. In lower oolite, oldest known crab. Three or four small marsupial quadrupeds. TRIASSIC. — Three or four mammals found in the upper most beds. Footprints, " in great part or wholly the work of reptiles. " Crocodiles. A great animal, half reptile, half bird. Marked change in the vegetation as compared with that of the permian and carbonifer ous periods. Abundance of cycads. PALAEOZOIC, OR ANCIENT LIFE. PERMIAN — First undoubted remains of a reptile, the protosaurus. Turtles and tortoises. Vegetable world nearly related to that of the coal measures: ferns, cone-bearing trees, etc. CARBONIFEROUS (coal, limestone, etc.). — Sea snails, scor pions, spiders, millipedes, winged insects. The lime stone in many places, over large areas and for a thickness of many yards, is almost entirely made up of the remains of stone lilies (crinoidea). The foot prints of the cheirotherium (handbeast). Vertebrae of a large creature believed to be allied to a frog. Vegetable world much the same as that of the Devo- TABLE OF GEOLOGICAL PERIODS. 25 nian rocks : fungi, cone-bearing trees, flowering plants, etc. , as in the Devonian, gigantic mosses and horsetails. DEVONIAN. — Winged insects. This is the age of armored fishes, the scales ganoid or enamelled and hard as bone, forming a true armor. Plants abundant. Cone- bearing trees, ferns, tree ferns, club mosses, horse tails, trees allied to our hardwood trees. Representa tives of almost all the great groups of plants which grow at present flourished in this age. SILURIAN. — Starfish, sea-urchins, creatures allied to sharks, stone lilies, tribolites. Bivalve shells related to oysters, cockles, etc., abound. LOWER SILURIAN. — Worm-like creatures, cuttlefish, crea tures allied to nautilus, corals, zoophites, stone lilies. Seaweeds, ferns, horsetails, club mosses, a cone-bear ing tree (allied to the pines), trees allied to the cone- bearers and to cycads. CAMBRIAN. — Stone lilies, bivalve shells, shells like whelks, limpets, etc. Crustaceans of a low type allied to shrimps. Possibly seaweeds. HURONIAN. — LAURENTIAN. — Eozoon. It is, however, greatly ques tioned whether this is an organism. CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY. CHAPTER I. ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. The teaching of Faith and Revelation on the origin of life. — Can science answer this question? — Spontaneous generation. — Its history. — There is no spontaneous generation. — Experiments by Pasteur and others. — Was the first living germ brought upon earth by an aerolite? — Monism. — Did the " Moneron" of Professor Haeckel ever exist? — The famous Bathybius. — Ex periment by Professor Moebius. — Huxley at the Congress of the British Association. — Observations of Milne-Edwards and John Murray. — Haeckel defends a lost cause. — Monism in flagrant contradiction to experimental method and scien tific evidence. — Conclusion. THE origin of life and its development is a subject of vital interest to all. Still if questioned: What is life in itself? we must confess that we know no more about it than we know of matter in itself. However, we know something of the properties of matter, and also know something about the laws of life and its development. These questions have been frequently discussed in our day; their importance* is so apparent that we shall de vote the present and the following chapter to them, in order to show the wild, reckless, and fallacious theories of some modern scientists, who make use of every primordial organism, to escape acknowledging God as the Origin and Creator of all life. 28 ORIGIN OF LIFE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT. 1. FAITH AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. — What are the teachings of Faith with regard to the origin of life? The first chapter of Genesis tells us that life had a beginning, that God created the vegetable world and the different kinds of animals, and, lastly, that He created a man and a woman, in a manner different from that in which He created other beings or things. In the ac count of the Deluge we are told that all men on earth were destroyed except Noe and his family, and that all mankind is descended from the three sons of Noe. Thus the origin, the first cause of life, is the same as the origin and first cause of all things. If we are asked : Is life due to immediate creation — to a special intervention of God, or is it the result of an initial state — an effect of laws primitively established, developed under favor able circumstances, determined by the Creator? we an swer: Faith does not prescribe, nor the Bible teach anything in regard to this. The dogma of creation is simple, clear, and comprehensive ; but it leaves a vast field open to human investigation and to the researches of biology, geology, and paleontology. 2. SCIENCE AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. — Can science give us unquestioned information on the origin of life? Can it offer definite teachings? Yes, it knows two things with certainty; first, life did not always exist on earth, it had a beginning; secondly, it is a law, proved by experiment, that every living being comes from a being endowed with life. Geology and paleon tology prove a condition of the earth when life did not and could not exist. They affirm with certitude that there has been an azoic period — that there is a prim itive azoic, terrestrial crust. The passage from death to life, from the inorganic to the organic on our globe, has a great scientific and doctrinal significance. It is the battle-field of material- SCIENCE AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. 29 ism.. It was so simple to affirm the eternity of matter, of force, of movement. But things changed greatly when materialists were brought face to face with the sen sible, undeniable facts of observation and experiment. Then the difficulties of materialism became quite grave, for after the formidable problem of the origin of atoms came the no less formidable problem of the origin of life. For a second time atheistic monism found itself caught in its own trap ; it must either acknowledge cre ative intervention, or discover an acceptable theory — a truly scientific theory — to replace it. The scientists who are not afraid to acknowledge their inability to explain the origin of life on the globe, are not only by far the most numerous, but also those best authorized to speak on this subject. However, we will quote only from the masters of rationalistic science — the fathers of the materialistic school. 