' y.
 
 THE DIVINE 
 
 PEDIGREE OF MAN 
 
 OR 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF EVOLUTION AND PSYCHOLOGY 
 TO THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD 
 
 BY 
 
 THOMSON JAY HUDSON, LL.D. 
 
 AUTHOR OF "THE LAW OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA," "A SCIENTIFIC 
 DEMONSTRATION OF THE FUTURE LIFE," 
 
 ETC. 
 
 THIRD EDITION 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 A. C. McCLURG & CO. 
 
 1902
 
 COPYRIGHT 
 
 BY A. C. MCCLURG & Co. 
 A.D. 1899
 
 TO MY WIFE 
 
 WITHOUT WHOSE LOVING AID, COUNSEL, AND ENCOURAGE- 
 MENT, THIS BOOK COULD NOT HAVE 
 BEEN WRITTEN. 
 
 2064724
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 TN attempting to fulfil a task so important, and 
 ** from a layman's point of view so difficult, as that 
 of outlining a scientific basis of Christian theism, I 
 feel it to be due to my readers that I should state 
 the causes which led me to undertake it, and the 
 principles by which I have been guided in carrying 
 it to a conclusion. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to remark that this book 
 was not written for the benefit of those who have 
 already found in Holy Writ sufficient evidence to 
 convince them of the existence of an intelligent 
 Great First Cause. Nor was it written to convince 
 anybody of the soundness of the theory of organic 
 evolution. 
 
 It was written for the benefit of that large and 
 constantly enlarging class of men who are imbued 
 with the ultra-scientific dogma that nothing in either 
 physical science or spiritual philosophy is worthy 
 of belief if it is not confirmed by a series of well- 
 authenticated facts, a congeries of observable natu- 
 ral phenomena. This class of course includes many 
 who are not themselves scientists, but who, having 
 been unable to assimilate the logic of the theologian, 
 pin their faith upon the asseverations of those scien-
 
 Vill PREFACE. 
 
 tists who claim to have definitely ascertained that 
 there is nothing in man that cannot be dragged to 
 light by means of the surgeon's instruments or the 
 appliances of the chemist's laboratory ; or upon the 
 reasoning of those logicians who claim to have dis- 
 covered, by the process of inductive inquiry, that 
 there is "no logical necessity" for the existence of 
 an intelligent Deity. It was written more especially 
 for the benefit of that large and constantly multiply- 
 ing class of intelligent students who have become 
 convinced of the substantial correctness of the gen- 
 eral theory of organic evolution, many of whom 
 have, at the same time, been led to adopt the athe- 
 istic conclusions reached by the great pioneers in 
 that science. Not that all, or even the greater part, 
 of the students of evolution have been thus led 
 astray ; for they have not. On the contrary, I think 
 it may be safely assumed that a great majority of 
 educated persons of all religious denominations now 
 recognize evolution as God's method of creation. 
 They have, indeed, not been slow to recognize the 
 fact that the teleological argument has been im- 
 mensely fortified by the simple facts of organic evo- 
 lution ; and they have been content to ignore the 
 atheistic hypotheses that were at first heralded as 
 necessary elements of the theory of evolution itself. 
 Nevertheless, there are many earnest seekers after 
 truth who are not thus fortified against the specious 
 arguments of atheism; some of whom are prone to 
 accept, at its face value, the gratuitous assumption 
 that the atheistic hypotheses of evolutionists are as 
 well sustained by facts as is the theory of evolu- 
 tion itself. It was to expose this error this fruit-
 
 PREFACE. ix 
 
 ful source of manifold errors and to show that the 
 facts of evolution are susceptible of no other than a 
 theistic interpretation, that this book was written. 
 In other words, it was written to show that the facts 
 of organic and mental evolution point clearly and 
 unmistakably to a divine origin of mind and life on 
 this earth ; and that the atheistic theories of agnostic 
 evolutionists are positively and unqualifiedly desti- 
 tute of facts to sustain them. 
 
 I have, therefore, deemed it best to frame my 
 argument upon purely scientific lines, avoiding spec- 
 ulative philosophy, and adhering strictly to the in- 
 ductive method of investigation. To that end I 
 have resisted the temptation to strengthen my argu- 
 ment by quotations from Holy Writ ; although the 
 Bible is full of pertinent passages which the Biblical 
 scholar will not fail to recognize and apply. I have 
 not even touched upon the teleological argument; 
 although the teleologist will not fail to find an 
 abundance of material for his purpose in the facts 
 presented. 
 
 As already intimated, the facts of organic and 
 mental evolution alone form the basis of my argu- 
 ment for theism, per se. And when I say that I 
 have accepted those facts as they are set forth by 
 the atheistic evolutionists, the reader will understand 
 that I have not selected my authorities from among 
 those who might be biased in favor of my conclu- 
 sions. Also, I have accepted their arguments in favor 
 of the general theory of organic evolution ; and I 
 have carried those arguments to their logical con- 
 clusion. In so doing I have shown that every fact 
 and every argument that sustains the theory of
 
 x PREFACE. 
 
 evolution also proves, with stronger reason, the divine 
 origin of life and mind. 
 
 In pursuing my investigations I have adopted the 
 plan of going back to the very beginning of organic 
 life on this planet in search of evidence to prove 
 my thesis. I have done this on the theory that the 
 nearer we approach to the source of anything the 
 more clearly will the nature of the source be re- 
 vealed in the observable phenomena. When I say 
 that I have not been disappointed in my quest, the 
 reader may understand that I have found in the 
 lowest forms of animal life indubitable evidence of 
 the divine origin of mind and life on this earth. I 
 have also duly considered the other salient facts, 
 phases, and stages of organic evolution, from the 
 monera to man, with the result of finding that the 
 uniform trend is in the same direction. 
 
 It is, however, one thing to establish the general 
 doctrine of the divine origin of life and mind, and 
 quite another to sustain the specific doctrine of 
 Christian theism. The one is amply proven by the 
 facts of organic evolution alone ; the other requires 
 the aid of psychology. 
 
 I have, therefore, given particular attention to the 
 latter science, not only with special reference to its 
 bearing upon Christian theism, but with regard to its 
 bearing upon the general subject of organic evolu- 
 tion. Those readers who are familiar with my former 
 works will readily understand that I refer to the new 
 psychology; that is, to that system of psychology 
 the fundamental principles of which were outlined in 
 "The Law of Psychic Phenomena." In the present 
 work I have simply carried to its legitimate conclu-
 
 PREFACE. xi 
 
 sion the fundamental hypothesis set forth in the work 
 above mentioned. I have been moved to do so for 
 many good and sufficient reasons, among which are : 
 (i) The hypothesis has already been demonstrated 
 to be capable of correlating all psychical phenomena, 
 and explaining them on scientific principles. (2) It 
 harmonizes with all the facts of the physical sci- 
 ences, including those of organic and mental evolu- 
 tion. (3) It is the only hypothesis that furnishes a 
 complete answer to the arguments of materialism in 
 reference to the question of the existence of a soul 
 in man, or of its immortality. (4) And finally, it 
 is the only psychological hypothesis yet promul- 
 gated that completely harmonizes all the facts of 
 science with the essential doctrines of the Christian 
 religion. 
 
 I have felt constrained, therefore, to make psy- 
 chology a prominent feature of this book; and in so 
 doing I have attempted to outline the fundamental 
 principles which may manifest the harmony that 
 exists between science and religion. Owing to the 
 limitations of space in a volume like this, I have been 
 compelled to confine myself to the specific subject 
 of Christian theism, leaving much unsaid that bears 
 upon the general subject of Christianity. The pur- 
 pose of my undertaking will have been accomplished, 
 however, if I have been able to point out to others a 
 method of research which will enable them to carry 
 forward the work that is here begun. 
 
 I have no apology to make for the faults of con- 
 struction and style of this book, other than to say 
 that it may appear that there are undue repetitions, 
 but it will be found that these are necessary to the
 
 xii PREFACE. 
 
 continuity of the thought or argument. Some of 
 them are, perhaps, due to the fact that much of the 
 matter has been taken from my lectures and essays 
 on special branches of the subject here treated. 
 
 T. J. H. 
 WASHINGTON, D. C, 
 
 October 10, 1899.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 part I. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND PSYCHOLOGY. 
 
 PACK 
 
 INTRODUCTION 31 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 
 
 Definition of " Agnosticism." Aggressive Ignorance. Mr. Her- 
 bert Spencer's " First Principles." His Charitable Effort to 
 harmonize Religion and Science. His " Great Unknowable." 
 His Numerous " Unthinkables." His Petitio Principii. 
 His Dogmatism. His Statement of Fundamental Proposi- 
 tions. His Lame and Impotent Conclusions. His " Basis of 
 Reconciliation." It is simply a Wholesale Acknowledgment 
 of Ignorance. It strikes at the very Root of Christian Faith. 
 It invites Imbecile Acquiescence in Agnosticism instead of Sci- 
 entific Investigation of Theism. Mr. Spencer's " First Princi- 
 ples " Re-examined. A Legitimate Conclusion Sought for. 
 The Conditions Requisite. The Fundamental Harmony of all 
 Religions. No Real Conflict between Religion and Science. 
 It is between Science and Man-made Theological Dogmas. 
 True Science is True Religion's Best Friend. True Science is 
 promotive of the Highest Conceptions of, and the most Exalted 
 Reverence for, the God of Christian Faith. Science is Pro- 
 motive of all Truth. There are not two Antagonistic Orders 
 of Truth. Truth the only Basis of Reconciliation between 
 Religion and Science. Science furnishes the Data for the 
 Inductive Study of Religion 42
 
 xiv CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PSYCHOLOGY. 
 
 General Principles of Psychology illustrated by Facts of Evolu- 
 tion. " The Law of Psychic Phenomena." Its Hypothesis 
 sustained by Facts of Evolution. A Summary of Fundamental 
 Principles. The Dual Mind. The Law of Suggestion. Ob- 
 jective and Subjective Minds differentiated. Their Powers 
 and their Limitations. Suggestion defined. Hypnotism. 
 Faculties of the Two Minds tabulated. An Analysis of the 
 Objective Mind. Its one Faculty Inductive Reason. Its De- 
 fective Memory. Its Dependence upon Cultivation and Re- 
 functioning. Its Faculties constitute Pure Intellect. The 
 Mind of Reason and Judgment. Its Sphere of Activity purely 
 Mundane. It is the Product of Evolutionary Development. 
 It perishes with the Body. The Subjective Mind. It is the 
 Primary Intelligence. It existed Millions of Years in Animal 
 Life before a Brain was evolved. It is the Ultimate Intelli- 
 gence. Synchronic Action of the Two Minds. Genius. 
 The Brain not the Organ of the Subjective Mind. The Dual 
 Mind normally controlled by the Objective Mind. The Law 
 of Suggestion its Instrument. Voluntary and Involuntary 
 Functions. One by the Objective Mind, the Other by the Sub- 
 jective. Exceptions in Deadly Peril. The Subjective Mind 
 is fitted especially for a Higher Plane of Existence . . . . 6a 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 
 
 The General Theory of Evolution. Too well established to re- 
 quire Full Discussion. The Pedigree of Man stamped upon 
 his Physical Organism. The Three Theories of Evolution : 
 Materialistic, Agnostic, and Theistic. Darwin, Romanes, and 
 Haeckel accepted as Authorities for Facts, not for Theories. 
 Facts showing Duality of Mind. The Brain not the Organ of 
 the Subjective Mind. The Genesis of the Human Soul. The 
 very Lowest Form of Animal Life. The Moneron. An " Or- 
 ganism without Organs " endowed with a Mind. Quotations 
 from Gates. Binet, and Others. The " Psychic Life of Micro- 
 Organisms." Their Habits and Mind Capacity. Reflex Ac- 
 tion discussed. Not Adequate to account for Phenomena. 
 All Vital Phenomena Present in Non-Differentiated Cells. 
 Wonderful Instincts of the Difflugia. Romanes on Instinct. 
 The Subjective Mind of Man and Animals Identical. It is
 
 CONTENTS. XV 
 
 PAGB 
 
 the Mind that is inherited from Ancestry, Near and Remote. 
 Instincts increase with Intelligence. Primary and Secondary 
 Instincts. New Ones developed in Game Animals. Change 
 of Environment develops New Dangers ; hence New or Sec- 
 ondary Instincts. All Instincts Inheritable. Subjective 
 Mind of Man the Sum of Ancestral Instincts. It antedated 
 Brain by many Ages. Brain, therefore, not the Organ of Sub- 
 jective Mind 74 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 
 
 The Brain not the Organ of the Subjective Mind. Proven by its 
 Identity with the Instinctive Minds of Animals. The Latter 
 proven by its Continuity from Lowest Organisms up to Man. 
 Continuity proven by Comparative Analysis of Faculties and 
 Functions. Instinct in Lower Animals Identical with Intuition 
 in Man. Its Definition. The Deductive Faculty potentially 
 Perfect in Subjective Minds of Animals as well as Men. The 
 Emotions are Faculties of the Subjective Minds of Men and 
 Animals alike. They antedated the Brain. Objective Mind 
 is Emotionless. Induction and Concomitant Memories, its 
 only Functions or Faculties. Telepathy a Power of the Sub- 
 jective Mind. It exists potentially in Animals. Telekinesis 
 a Subjective Power. It is the Power that enabled Jesus and 
 Peter to walk upon the Water. It reappears in so-called 
 Spirit Phenomena. The Mysterious Motility of the Polycys- 
 tids. Science cannot explain it under Physical Laws. All 
 Subjective Powers derived from Lower Animals, beginning 
 with the Unicellular Organisms. Further Proof by Experi- 
 mental Surgery. Scientific Search for a Soul with a Scalpel. 
 
 Materialistic Arguments from Cerebral Anatomy disproved. 
 
 They have searched in the Wrong Place for the Soul. The 
 Soul is Immanent in the Body, not Inherent in it. Proofs from 
 Voluntary and Involuntary Muscles and Functions. Time 
 Reaction Different in the Two Minds. Phenomena when 
 Death approaches. Subjective Mind grows Stronger as Ob- 
 jective Mind grows Weaker. Strongest Manifestations in the 
 Hour of Death, after Brain has ceased to act. Death-Bed 
 Scene when Governor Matthews passed away. The Physi- 
 cian's Testimony. The Wonderful Power of Suggestion then 
 exhibited. Proofs from Experimental Hypnotism. The Phe- 
 nomena of Amnesia a Crucial Test. Spontaneous Somnam- 
 bulism. Proofs from Phenomena of Dreams 87
 
 xvi CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Table showing when Brain was evolved. Rapidity of Subse- 
 quent Evolutionary Progress. Geometrical Rate of Increase 
 
 The Neptunian Strata. The Inconceivable Length of Time 
 embraced in Organic History. Psychological Lessons taught 
 by the Table. More than One Half the Time elapsed before 
 a Brain appeared on this Earth. Progress Slow up to that 
 Time. Development more Rapid in the Next Epoch, but still 
 Slow. One Third of the Time consumed in the Age of 
 Fishes. The Following Epoch made still more Rapid Prog- 
 ress, yet about One Ninth of the Time was consumed in the 
 Reptilian Age. The Age of Mammals occupied but about 
 One Fiftieth of the Whole Time. The Age of Man but One 
 Two-Hundredth Part. The Historic Period occupied but an 
 infinitesimally Small Part of One Per Cent of the Whole 
 Time. The Significance of these Facts. The Real Func- 
 tion of the Brain in Organic Life. When did Animals begin 
 to Reason ? The Brain as a Factor in Evolutionary Develop- 
 ment. Its Inductive Powers. Its Ability to cope with an 
 Environment of Error incident to Organic Life in the Forma- 
 tive Stage. The Significance of the Intuitive Faculty. An- 
 other Plane of Existence its Apparent Realm of Activity. 
 Some Fundamental Axioms. Secondary Instincts. The 
 Power of Induction in Animals. Increased Rate of Progres- 
 sive Development due to that Faculty 107 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 
 
 Objective Mind educates the Subjective Mind. Hence the In- 
 stinct of Animals is exactly proportioned to their Intelligence. 
 
 Authorities cited. Progressive Mental Evolution brought 
 about by Development of Secondary Instincts. Romanes on 
 Primary and Secondary Instincts. The Latter brought about 
 by " Natural Selection." The Absurdity of that Theory illus- 
 trated. The General Theory of Natural Selection accepted 
 with Reservations, but it is overloaded to an Absurd Degree. 
 
 Lamarck's Theory of " Appetency " also accepted with Quali- 
 fications. The Two Theories Complementary. Further 
 Illustration of the Absurdity of ascribing Primary Instincts 
 to Natural Selection. A Logical Axiom, "Never need- 
 lessly multiply Causes." Primary and Secondary Instincts
 
 CONTENTS. xvn 
 
 PAGS 
 
 defined. They accord with the History of Organic Evolu- 
 tion. New Environmental Conditions reveal New Dangers. 
 These are at first intelligently overcome. Habit converts 
 the Acts into Instincts which are then inherited. Natural 
 Selection not an Original Cause of New Species. Strictly 
 speaking, it is not a Law of Nature. " Survival of the Fittest " 
 an Incident, not a Law. It is an Effect of other Causes. 
 Natural Selection not the Origin of Species. Natural Selec- 
 tion is the Theory of Chance. It is Atheistic in its Last Anal- 
 ysis. Lamarck's Theory. It is a Necessary Factor in any 
 Complete Theory of Evolution. Structural Changes due to 
 New Instinctive Impulses. The Latter due to Brain Develop- 
 ment. Brain Development due to constantly Increasing Com- 
 plexities of Environment. This is True of Man as of the 
 Lower Animals. Each Individual Intelligence is the Sum of 
 all Ancestral Instincts plus its Objective Intelligence .... 120 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Instincts of the Unicellular Organism. Its Impellent Energy. 
 The Constant Force back of Evolution. The l^aw is Prog- 
 ress. Nature's Novum Organum. Useful Instincts a Per- 
 manent Heritage. Appetency the Effective Agency of Pro- 
 gressive Development. Every Mind Organism a Union of 
 Elements of Conservation and Progress. The Immutability 
 of Natural Law. The same Laws prevail in Organic and 
 Mental, Moral and Spiritual Development. Primary In- 
 stincts the same in Animals and Men. The same is true 
 of Secondary Instincts. Instinct and Intuition Identical. 
 Emotions have the same Root and Origin. Religious Wor- 
 ship a Filial Emotion. Animal Telepathy. Telekinetic En- 
 ergy. Objective and Subjective Memory differentiated. In 
 Men as in Animals the Increasing Complexities of Environ- 
 ment the Spur to Progressive Development. In Men as in 
 Animals the Bulk of Intelligence is Subjective. The Ulti- 
 mate Ego is the Subjective Entity. All that is worth Pre- 
 serving in the Future Life resides in the Subjective Mind. . . 149 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 
 
 The Simplicity of Nature's Laws. Evolution no Exception. 
 Two Instincts responsible for all the Phenomena of Evolution- 
 
 b
 
 xvni CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 ary Development. Self-Preservation and the Instinct of Evo- 
 lution : one Conservative, the other Progressive and Creative. 
 Natural Selection not a Law, but an Incident. Evolutionary 
 Instinct a Constant Force. It is also Altruistic in all its Im- 
 pulses. Illustrations from Every-Day Life. Fallacies of the 
 Old Philosophies. They refer Everything to Instinct of Self- 
 Preservation. With them all Virtue or Benevolence a Subli- 
 mated Form of Selfishness. Herbert Spencer's Philosophy of 
 Utilitarianism. Pure Selfishness. Altruistic Acts the most 
 Pleasurable, because in Harmony with the Strongest Instinct. 
 
 Primordial Altruism. The Creative Energy Inherent in all 
 Sentient Creatures. Human Character determined by Rela- 
 tive Development of the Two Instincts. Altruistic Impulses 
 Predominant in the World. Welfare of Future Generations 
 the Incentive. Schools, Colleges, Churches, and Eleemosy- 
 nary Institutions, are Examples. Altruistic Instinct Stronger 
 than Instinct of Self-Preservation, otherwise there could be no 
 Progress. The most Altruistic Governments the most Pro- 
 gressive, and the People the most Patriotic and Brave and 
 Warlike and Humane. Progress toward Universal Altruism 
 Constant and Rapid. Atavistic and Degenerate Nations 
 Their Decadence. Central Ideas of Evolutionists and Chris- 
 tian Theism harmonized. The Evolutionary Instinct the Im- 
 pellent Energy of Physical, Mental, Moral, and Religious 
 Progress 159 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 EVOLUTION OF THE TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 
 
 Recapitulation. Man's Environment of a Moral, Social, and 
 Spiritual Nature. Same Process of Development with Men 
 as with Animals. Brain Mind reasons out a Line of Con- 
 duct. Habit converts it into a Permanent Characteristic. 
 
 It is then an Attribute of the Subjective Mind, i. e. In- 
 stinctive. It is then Inheritable. The Warfare between 
 Reason and Passion Not for the Suppression of Passional 
 Emotions, but for their Regulation. Reason the Judicial Tri- 
 bunal. The Sum of its Decisions constitutes the Character 
 of the Individual. As befits its Judicial Character, the Rea- 
 soning Mind is Emotionless. Nevertheless it ministers to 
 Self-interest. It decides upon what is Best for the Individ- 
 ual. The Brain the Novum Organum of Animal Intelligence. 
 
 Suggestion the Executive Agency of the Judicial Tribunal. 
 
 It is the Power which invests Man with Dominion over 
 all Animate Nature, including Himself. Intellectual Faculties
 
 CONTENTS. xix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 of Subjective Mind rarely appear above the Surface. Ex- 
 ceptions in Genius. Emotions, however, constantly in Evi- 
 dence. Synchronism of the Two Minds. Facts demonstrat- 
 ing Duality of Mind. Hypnotism, Somnambulism, etc. 
 Objective Mind not controlled by Suggestion. Subjective 
 Mind is so controlled except in Matters of Conscience. Man 
 not handicapped by a Preponderance of Evil in his Nature. 
 
 The Strongest Instinct impels to Progress. Reason is on 
 the Side of Right. A Crucial Question. Why does the 
 Mortal Mind dominate the Immortal Mind in this Life? 
 The Question answered. The Immortal, or Subjective, 
 Mind was destined for a Higher Plane of Ultimate Existence. 
 
 Meantime Subjective Faculties must develop on this Plane. 
 
 Reason the Agency. Thus Man was made a Free Moral 
 Agent 17? 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 EVOLUTION OF THE TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 
 
 The same Laws of Development prevail in States as in Individ- 
 uals. All Aggregations have their Origin in Intelligent Ap- 
 preciation of the Necessity for Mutual Protection. Reason 
 teaches Mutual Helpfulness and Forbearance. Churches, 
 Schools, and Benevolent Institutions follow in their Order. 
 Altruism is intelligently practised. Habit converts it into an 
 Instinctive Emotion. In due Time Patriotism becomes In- 
 stinctive. It is developed in Proportion to Beneficence of 
 Institutions. Foreign War the Supreme Test of Patriotism. 
 
 Capable of Indefinite Expansion. Its Origin in Parental 
 Instinct. May be expanded so as to embrace all Humanity. 
 
 Its Highest Manifestations in the most Progressive Nations. 
 
 In such Nations it approaches Universal Altruism. It be- 
 comes more than mere Love of Country. It becomes the 
 Missionary Agent of Christian Civilization. Trade and Com- 
 merce its Promoters. The Incentive to all Effort and all 
 Progress. It is God's Method of inciting Men to Action. 
 Contrast with the " Gentle Savage," who neither works nor 
 fights. Hunger as an Intellectual Stimulant alike with Ani- 
 mals and Men. Nations must be Prosperous before they can 
 be Altruistic. God's Bounty from a Full Store. Accumula- 
 tions of Wealth cannot properly be discouraged, yet God re- 
 quires an Accounting . 191
 
 xx CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAFi'ER XL 
 
 EVOLUTION OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Normal Control of the Subjective Mind. When Conscience be- 
 comes Instinctive. A Secondary Instinct. The Ultimate 
 Instinctive Emotion of the Human Soul. Dominates all 
 other Emotions. It was developed precisely the same as 
 were all other Secondary Instincts. It was the Result of the 
 Inductive Reasoning of the Objective Mind. Facts of Ob- 
 servation and Expeiience resulted in the Maxim, " Honesty is 
 the Best Policy." This is Mr. Spencer's Conscience. It 
 culminates just where Real Conscience begins. It is the 
 Utilitarian Conscience. It is a Step in the Process of Develop- 
 ment, not the Process itself. It constitutes a Suggestion to 
 the Subjective Mind. The Suggestion is accepted and de- 
 ductively carried to Higher Conclusions It is thus reinforced 
 by every Religious Principle or Emotion. It is further assisted 
 by Intuition. As with the Lower Animals, so with Man. 
 Every Step in Advance is accompanied by Increased Powers of 
 Intuitive Perception of Essential Truth. Jesus of Nazareth is 
 an Example. The Older Prophets. Conscience, however, 
 may be perverted. Hence the Inquisition and Religious 
 Wars ; hence Cranks. Perverted or unperverted, it is the 
 Strongest Emotion of the Human Soul. Perverted Con- 
 science the Exception ; hence Progress toward the Higher 
 Altruism. It is when Conscience becomes Instinctive that 
 the Subjective Mind assumes the Ascendancy. The Sugges- 
 tions of Conscience overshadow all other Suggestions. At 
 the Threshold of the Moral and Religious Realm the Soul 
 asserts its Normal Supremacy 203 
 
 part II. 
 
 PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN THEISM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PRELIMINARY. 
 
 Facts of Evolution to be distinguished from Theories of Evolu- 
 tionists. Theistic Argument, per sf, to be based upon Facts 
 presented by Antitheistic Evolutionists, Darwin, Haeckel,
 
 CONTENTS. xxi 
 
 PAGB 
 
 and Romanes. Their Arguments for Evolution to be utilized 
 as a Basis of Theistic Conclusions. Exception to be taken 
 to Subsidiary Hypotheses. Distinction to be drawn between 
 Theisms. Theism, per se, proven by Facts of Evolution. 
 Christian Theism by Evolution and Psychology. The World 
 interested alone in Christian Theism. Is Christian Civiliza- 
 tion founded on Truth or Error? The New Psychology a 
 Necessary Factor. The Old Psychologies Inadequate to 
 a Solution of the Problem 219 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE GREAT ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 
 
 Logical Cobwebs to be cleared away. The Real Question : Is 
 there a Personal Deity? Anthropomorphism not Chargeable 
 under New Psychology. The Service rendered by Evolution- 
 ists. Refuted Doctrine of Special Creations, and then said 
 in their Hearts, "There is no God." Mr. Darwin's Great 
 Labor directed toward Atheism. Entitled to Credit for prov- 
 ing Evolution. Natural Selection as the Origin of Species 
 not sustained by Facts. Artificial Selection produces New 
 Morphological Species, not Physiological. Examples. Hux- 
 ley takes this View. Proof of Natural Selection lacking. 
 The Theory clung to by Atheism, because it disguises the 
 Theory that Physical Organism antedates Intelligence. This 
 is the Stronghold of Atheism. It is assumed without Proof, 
 which is begging the Question. Theory of Spontaneous Gen- 
 eration without One Fact to support it. All Known Facts 
 against it. Haeckel assumes it confessedly without Facts. 
 Begs the Question. Tyndall's Experiments failed to produce 
 Organic Life from Inorganic Matter. The Crucial Point at 
 the Beginning of Organic Life. Natural Selection the The- 
 ory of Chance. Lamarck's Theory of Appetency. Darwin's 
 Contempt for Lamarck because his Theory presupposed Intel- 
 ligence as the Cause of Organism. "It implies Necessary 
 Progression." "A Wretched Book." Darwin's Private Re- 
 ligious Views. Lamarck's Theory complementary to Dar- 
 win's. Huxley's Latest Views. They indorse Lamarck's 
 Theory. Haeckel vs. Haeckel. The Scientist vs. the Athe- 
 ist. The Moneron demonstrates Mind as Antecedent to Physi- 
 cal Organism. The Monera are Structureless, and yet they 
 are endowed with Mind and Life. A Wonderful Intelli- 
 gence. His Theory itself a Case of "Spontaneous Genera- 
 tion." The Moneron as a Symbol and an Example. 
 Symbolizes the Whole Process of Evolution. An Example 
 of Creative Power, of Control of Mind over Matter, of the
 
 xxil CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Immanence of the Soul in the Body. Its Independence of 
 Organism, of a Law of Infinite Reproduction. Haeckel's 
 Assumption begs the Question at Issue. It is in Defiance of 
 all Facts and Recognized Principles. Atheism based upon 
 Pure Assumption. The Theories of Darwin and his Follow- 
 ers are Atheistic. Their Facts are Theistic 225 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST EARTHLY ANCESTOR. 
 
 The Doctrine of Heredity. All that is inherent in Man is what 
 he inherited from his Ancestry, Near and Remote. The Po- 
 tentials of Manhood, therefore, resided in the Moneron. 
 Propositions reduced to Syllogistic Form. The Two Primor- 
 dial Instincts as shown in the Moneron. The Prepotent 
 Agency of Physical Development and of Human Progress. 
 A Complete Law of Evolution thus exemplified in the Monera. 
 
 Thus Progress toward Highest Development follows Lines 
 of Least Resistance. Only Good implanted in Man's Earliest 
 Earthly Ancestor. What is Instinct? Atheistic Theories 
 considered. Herbert Spencer's Reflex Action. Romanes 
 vs. Spencer. Facts and not Phrases to be considered. Analy- 
 sis of the Mental Faculties of the Moneron. Based on Haeck- 
 el's Statements. Sensation, Movement, Nutrition, Reproduc- 
 tion, Regeneration, Intelligence. The Promise and Potency 
 of a Human Soul. That Intelligence comprises a Knowledge 
 of the Primary Laws of Organic Life. Reflex Action pre- 
 supposes Subjective Intelligence. It is a Recognition of 
 Danger coupled with an Effort to avoid it. It never makes a 
 Mistake. The Simplest Manifestation of Instinct of Self- 
 Preservation. The Old Psychology at Fault. It knew 
 Nothing of Subjective Mind. All its Data from the Objec- 
 tive Mind. Phenomena due to Sensation being prompted by 
 Intelligence, it follows that the same is true of the Other Facul- 
 
 x ties. Mind of the Moneron differs in no Essential from Sub- 
 jective Mind of Man, except in Degree. The same Terms 
 define its Powers and Attributes. Nor can Faculties of the 
 Moneron be adequately described except in Terms that define 
 Omniscience 258 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OTHER GODLIKE POTENTIALS IN THE MIND OF THE MONERON. 
 
 Endowed with Creative Powers. The Real "Origin of Species." 
 
 Haeckel's Admissions. Its Development from the Undif- 
 ferentiated Moneron to the Differentiated Amceba. The En-
 
 CONTENTS. xxni 
 
 PACK 
 
 ergy " from within." The Greatest Single Step in the Process 
 of Evolution. The Key to the Whole Mystery. The Crea- 
 tive Power of Mind. We must infer that all other Changes 
 in Organism were due to the same Creative Energy. It is 
 the Constant Force behind all Progressive Development. 
 Huxley on the Innate Creative Powers of Animal Intelligence. 
 
 The Growth and Development of the Salamandrine Egg. 
 The Power of the Water Newt to reproduce Lost Limbs. 
 These Powers Typical Examples of Creative Energy. They 
 are Nature's Divine Revelations. This Creative Power by 
 Extension to Infinity would mean Omnipotence. Its Knowl- 
 edge of the Essential Laws of its Being by Extension would 
 mean Omniscience. Its Power is that of Mind over Matter. 
 
 It is, then, essentially Godlike, differing only in Degree. 
 The Tendency of Science to name Things in the Absence of 
 an Explanation. The Popular Belief that Names do explain 
 Things. Illustrative Examples. The Theory of the Uncon- 
 scious. Hence Learned Talk of the Unconscious Acts of the 
 Lower Animals. All the Facts of Experience show that the 
 Subjective Mind of Man is most intensely Conscious. We 
 have a Right to infer that the same is True of Animals. The 
 same Laws prevail. Subjective "Unconsciousness," there- 
 fore, is Objective Ignorance of the States of Subjective Con- 
 sciousness. The Same is True of our Knowledge of Con- 
 sciousness of Lower Animals. Instinctive Acts are therefore 
 presumably Conscious Acts. The Consciousness of a Godlike 
 Mind. Whence came it ? There are but Two Hypotheses. 
 
 One is Spontaneous Generation ; the Other is Divine Inheri- 
 tance. One is Atheism ; the Other is Theism. One is with- 
 out a Fact to support it, it rests upon Pure Assumption, 
 a Petitio Principii, Gross and Palpable ; the Other will be dis- 
 cussed in the Ensuing Chapters 274 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 NATURAL LAW VS. "SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE." 
 
 One of the Atheistic Strongholds. Words and Phrases sup- 
 posed to be Contumelious. A Method of Compelling the 
 Acceptance of " Scientific " Absurdities. Potential Scare- 
 Words, e.g. Haeckel's "Supernatural Miracle." His Esti- 
 mate of Deific Limitations. The Question raised. Is a 
 Miracle Necessary to escape Spontaneous Generation? 
 Miracle defined. Facts of Evolution exclude Miracle. 
 Everything happens in Regular Order, therefore not Miracu- 
 lous. To suppose Miracle to be Necessary is to prescribe
 
 xxiv CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Limitations to Divine Intelligence. The Established Order 
 of Nature the Antithesis of Miracle. Beginning of Life 
 necessarily in the Established Order. Generation of Mind 
 from Inorganic Matter would require a Miracle. We must 
 assume Natural Law to prevail 289 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 
 
 Facts drawn from the History of Organic Evolution. The Doc- 
 trine of Heredity. Its Biological Definition. The Author- 
 ity of Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel. The Common Ground 
 upon which Atheism and Theism can stand. The Acknowl- 
 edged Facts of Heredity. The Necessary Presumptions. 
 Something to inherit. Something from which to inherit. 
 The Character of the Inheritance. Must exist actually or 
 potentially in the Ancestor. May differ in Degree, but not in 
 Kind. Man inherits from his Lower Ancestry back to the 
 Moneron. Whence the Intelligence of the Moneron ? The 
 Law of Heredity presupposes an Ancestor. Atheism says, 
 " This is an Exception to the General Law." Theism replies 
 that Laws of Nature do not admit of Exceptions. The Issue 
 systematically examined. The Necessity of going back to the 
 Beginning of Organic Life. (i) The Issue: Spontaneous 
 Generation or Inheritance. (2) The Facts agreed upon: 
 (a) Potentials of Manhood in the Moneron (b) Faculties 
 acquired only by Inheritance (c) Antecedent Intelligence 
 presupposed (d) Failure of Experimental Attempts to gen- 
 erate Life from Inorganic Matter (e) Monera Destitute of 
 Structural Organism (f) Nevertheless endowed with a Mind 
 
 (g) Developed into a Structural Organism (h) Moneron's 
 Mind antedated its Physical Organism. 3. What Facts sup- 
 port Theory of Spontaneous Generation? Confessedly all 
 Facts are against it. Experimental Failures. Quality of 
 Evidence considered. Negative Evidence not the Best. 
 But a Hypothesis without one Fact to support it is a Logical 
 Absurdity. Hypothesis Valid only when sustained by all 
 Facts. Otherwise no Constancy in Nature. Atheistic Hy- 
 pothesis Unique. Has no Parallel in Bald, Unreasoning 
 Assumption. Reasons for Atheist's Attitude. Doctrine of 
 Evolution disproved Theory of Special Creations. Hence 
 he "said in his Heart, There is no God." Hence Necessity 
 for inventing a Hypothesis. Paralleled only by that of Topsy. 
 
 Haeckel's Statement of the Issue. Spontaneous Genera- 
 tion or " Supernatural Miracle." Equivalent to Spontaneous
 
 CONTENTS. xxv 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Generation or Divine Agency. The Latter the Real Issue. 
 No Other Possible. One is True and the Other False. 
 Logical Conditions considered. Facts in Support of Heredi- 
 tary Hypothesis next in Order 295 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY (CONTINUED). 
 
 The Character of the Heritage. If essentially Divine, it is Pre- 
 sumptive Evidence of Divine Origin. If no other Source is 
 Possible, the Evidence is Conclusive. No other Possible 
 Source has been shown. Examination of Facts showing 
 Divine Attributes in the Moneron. They are the Element- 
 ary Facts of Evolution. They demonstrate Intuitive Knowl- 
 edge of Laws of its Being. Explanations on other Grounds 
 Pure Assumptions. Begging the Question. Knowledge 
 measured by Actions. Adaptation of Means to Ends the 
 Test of Intelligence. Attributes summed up. Intuition. 
 Antecedent to Organism. Has Power over Unorganized 
 Matter. Creative Power. Creates New Species. Trans- 
 mits by Inheritance. Dominant Instinct Creative. Domi- 
 nant Emotion Altruistic. Potentially Divine. All Essential 
 Attributes of the God of Christian Faith. Differing only 
 in Degree. Knowledge, Power, Love. Whence came they? 
 
 The Question for Inductive Science. Science knows of 
 but One Way of acquiring Faculties, Inheritance. By 
 Analysis of Faculties it learns the Character of Ancestry, 
 and can predict Character of Posterity. No Exceptions" to 
 Nature's Laws. Divine Faculties necessarily a Divine Heri- 
 tage. Atheistic Objections. "Supernatural Miracle." 
 Objection Invalid. Miracle cannot be posited on Intelli- 
 gence. Natural Law always presumed. Electric Phenomena 
 originated in Cosmic Electrical Energy Mind originated in 
 Cosmic Mind Energy. Atheistic Theory a Recrudescence 
 of Fetichism. Mind in Inanimate Matter, e. g. No Disre- 
 spect to Fetich Worshipper. Lodestone does not generate 
 Magnetism. Protoplasm does not generate Mind. Each 
 Substance is a Medium of Manifestation of a Cosmic Energy. 
 
 Can One Mind be produced from Another ? Reproduction 
 an Example. Reproduction by Fission Demonstrative. The 
 Monera indefinitely Divisible. Each Particle a Distinct Mind 
 Organism. Reproduction a Mental Act. Inferences as to 
 Divine Methods. The Mind of each Sentient Creature a Part 
 of the Divine Mind. Logical Rules of Investigation. The 
 Law of Parsimony. All violated by Atheism. Truth does
 
 xxvi CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 not necessitate a Violation of Logical Principles. All Es- 
 sential Truth may be known by Inductive Investigation. 
 Application of Rules. Logical Axioms : (i) No Effect with- 
 out a Cause; (2) Cause always Commensurable with Effect. 
 
 They are "Universal Postulates." We may therefore 
 always know the Nature of a Cause by observing its Effects. 
 
 Nature never erects False Signals. Under this Law we 
 know that the Cause of Mind is Mind. Under the Law of 
 Heredity we know its Attributes, that it is an Organized, 
 Conscious Intelligence, a Personality, a Creative Intelligence, 
 a Constant Energy, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Altruistic. No 
 other Hypothesis accounts for All the Facts. If Nature is 
 Constant, we know that God is our Father 310 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 
 
 The Strongest Argument in Favor of the Evolutionary Hypothe- 
 sis. The Analogical Argument from Ontogeny to Phylogeny. 
 
 Haeckel's Great Work Demonstrative of its Validity. But 
 he was in Search of Atheistic Arguments. He found None. 
 
 On the Contrary, he found Proofs of Theism. General 
 Remarks in re the Analogical Argument. Invalid unless the 
 Phenomena and Laws are the Same. The Present Argument 
 Valid. Ontogeny a Repetition of Phylogeny. Phylogeny 
 the Cause of Ontogeny under the Law of Heredity. The 
 Primordial Germ and the Germinal Cell Identical in Character 
 and Attributes. The Importance of this Fact. The Later 
 Forms of the Human Embryo correspond with the Salient 
 Steps in Phylogeny. The Law of Heredity the Cause of the 
 Correspondence. Evidence Comparable to that of Successive 
 Geological Strata. Man recognizes his Earliest Earthly An- 
 cestor by its Resemblance to the Form which marked his Earli- 
 est Embryotic Form. Haeckel's " Fundamental Law of Or- 
 ganic Evolution " formulated. The Debt that Science owes 
 to Haeckel. The Pains he has taken to develop Facts that 
 disprove his Anti-Theistic Beliefs. His Method of accounting 
 for his Facts not so Ingenuous, or he has failed to see their 
 Trend. His Invitation to Philosophers. His Promised Re- 
 wards to those who will explain Ontogeny phylogenetically. 
 His own Conclusions arrived at only by ignoring his Facts. 
 Next Chapter will explain Ontogenetic Facts phylogenetically, 
 and carry the Analogical Argument to its Legitimate Conclusion. 334
 
 CONTENTS. xxvn 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE THEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Professor Haeckel's Premises accepted for more than his Esti- 
 mated Valuation. No Dispute as to Facts. The Matter in 
 Dispute relates to Deductions from Laws agreed upon. The 
 Invisible World not outside the Domain of Law. All Natu- 
 ral Forces Invisible. Deductions from Known Laws always 
 Legitimate. Facts agreed upon by Atheists and Theists : 
 I. Ontogeny repeats Phylogeny. 2. Phylogeny causes Onto- 
 geny. 3. Heredity the Controlling Law. 4. Heredity con- 
 trols Ontogeny and Phylogeny. 5. Potentialities of Manhood 
 reside in the Germinal Cell of Man. 6. Also in the Pri- 
 mordial Germ. It follows that (i) the Laws are the same; 
 (2) that Pre-existent Conditions were the same; (3) that 
 Causes were Identical in Kind. The Ontogenetic and Phylo- 
 genetic Series begin alike with the Moneron and end in Man. 
 
 Each has Identical Powers and Mental Attributes. Condi- 
 tions and Causes being the same, if we find the Cause for one 
 Condition we can safely infer the other. We know why 
 Potentials of Manhood reside in the Germinal Cell of Man. 
 Because they were inherited from an Antecedent Mind, that 
 of the Parent. Corollary: The Potentialities of Manhood 
 reside in the Moneron because they were inherited from an 
 Antecedent Mind, that of the Infinite Parent. No other 
 Conclusion logically Legitimate. A Denial is a Repudiation 
 of all Known Laws relating to it, especially that of Heredity. 
 
 If Nature is constant, the Moneron inherited its Divine 
 Potentialities from the Divine Mind. This is the Analogical 
 Argument carried to its Legitimate Conclusion. The Anal- 
 ogy is Incomplete without it, and therefore Invalid. What 
 does Atheism offer in Refutation? Spontaneous Generation. 
 
 A Theory without a Fact to support it. An Abandon- 
 ment of Induction. A Guess and a Hope that Somebody 
 may sometime discover (or manufacture) a Fact to sustain the 
 Atheist's Guesses. Darwin's Guess and Huxley's Hope. 
 Haeckel's Gue.-s without Hope. Ward's Guess and Hope. 
 Specimens of Atheistic " Induction." Nevertheless the World 
 owes them much ; notwithstanding a Relapse toward Fetich- 
 ism, they builded better than they knew. Their Facts prove 
 the Theory of Evolution, but they also prove the Existence 
 
 of the God of Christian Faith 349
 
 xxvi u CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The True Basis of Reconciliation of Religion and Science. 
 Consists in a Truthful Interpretation of the Facts of Nature. 
 There are not Two Orders of Truth, one Scientific and the 
 other Religious. The Old Prophet's Declaration. Man was 
 made in the Image of God. The Common Anthropomorphic 
 Interpretation. Due to a Defective Psychology. God was 
 conceived as an Infinite Reasoner. Otherwise an Infinite In- 
 quirer after Facts and a Guesser at Conclusions. The Divine 
 Likeness in the Faculties of the Subjective Mind. Even its 
 Limitations Suggestive of Divine Attributes. The Signifi- 
 cance of its Limitations. Its Faculties tabulated. Intuition 
 an essentially Divine Attribute. Its Importance in the Or- 
 ganic World. Deductive Reasoning the Concomitant of Intui- 
 tion. They, with Memory, constitute the Intellectual Facul- 
 ties of the Subjective Mind. Extended by Infinity, they would 
 be Omniscience. Inconceivable Rapidity of Subjective Men- 
 tation. Prodigious Feats of Memory, Illustrative Cases. 
 Dynamic Energy of the Subjective Mind. Telekinesis. Ex- 
 tended to Infinity, it would be Omnipotence. New Testament 
 Examples of Dynamic Force of the Soul. Telepathy. Its 
 Significance. Distance no Obstacle Infinite Extension 
 would constitute Omnipresence. A Channel of Communica- 
 tion between God and Man. Prayer and Inspiration. The 
 Natural Emotions. Their Altruistic Character. Infinite Ex- 
 tension would mean Infinite and Universal Love. Thus the 
 Faculties of the Soul, infinitely extended, give us an Omni- 
 scient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God of Infinite and Universal 
 Love. The Highest Possible Conception of Deity. The 
 Conception not Anthropomorphic. It neither limits nor meas- 
 ures God. His Qualities alone revealed. But it shows that 
 Man was made in the Image of God. This much Man may 
 know of God. Not that it reveals Human Attributes in God, 
 but Divine Attributes in Man. Man's Place in Nature. His 
 Obligations and Duties 361
 
 EVOLUTION AND PSYCHOLOGY.
 
 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 I. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND PSYCHOLOGY. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IT is the boast of science that its only quest is 
 truth, and that in its pursuit the inductive 
 method of inquiry is never departed from. So per- 
 sistently have scientists iterated and reiterated this 
 declaration, and so abundant are the evidences that 
 they have in the main adhered to it, that the uncriti- 
 cal world is wont to accept as truth whatever bears 
 the scientific label, and as valid whatever conclusions 
 are alleged to have been reached by the process of 
 induction. Nor can it be denied that the constantly 
 multiplying scientific appliances of modern civiliza- 
 tion afford indubitable evidences of the value, not 
 to say the infallibility, of the Baconian methods of 
 research in the realm of physical science. The mar- 
 vellous success of the inductive method of searching 
 for truth in the material world not unnaturally gave 
 rise to the broad declaration, by the materialistic 
 scientists, that no theory of causation, spiritual or 
 physical, is worthy of serious consideration unless
 
 32 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 it be sustained by a series of well-authenticate.d facts 
 that can bear no other possible interpretation. This 
 was the prevailing idea among skeptical scientists 
 and their followers when Darwin propounded the 
 theory that the organic world owed its existence to 
 progressive development and inheritance from the 
 lower forms of animal life. 
 
 With what alacrity this theory was accepted by 
 the skeptical scientists, and how thoroughly it was 
 reprobated by the theological world, are matters of 
 history. The reasons for the acceptance on the one 
 hand and the rejection on the other were, of course, 
 identical. The theory, if true, disproved the then 
 prevailing theological dogma of special, miraculous 
 creations of species in the organic world. 
 
 It was here that the first great, fundamental error 
 was committed by both sides. On the part of the 
 atheistic scientists it consisted in the assumption 
 that, by disproving the doctrine of special creations, 
 they had eliminated God from the universe; or, to 
 use the language of Romanes, they had thereby ob- 
 viated the " logical necessity for a God." On the 
 part of the theologians the mistake consisted in 
 accepting the conclusion as a valid deduction from 
 the premise; thus rendering it logically necessary 
 for them to denounce the doctrine of evolution 
 itself. For the time being no one seemed to regard 
 any middle ground as logically possible; and the 
 breach between science and religion seemed wider 
 than ever. 
 
 After a few years had elapsed, however, the most 
 liberal-minded, intelligent, and unprejudiced of both 
 sides began to realize that it did not necessarily
 
 rNTRODUCTfON. 33 
 
 follow that, if the theory of evolution was the true 
 explanation of organic life, it obviated the logical 
 necessity for an intelligent Great First Cause of all 
 things. On the contrary, as the true theory of 
 organic evolution came to be better understood by 
 its early enemies, and their first crude and ridiculous 
 conceptions of it were dissipated by a knowledge of 
 its real scope and significance, it became more and 
 more evident that evolution is simply God's method 
 of creation. With this clearer understanding of the 
 subject came higher conceptions of the true nature 
 and character of the Divine Mind than had ever 
 before prevailed. God was seen to be a being of 
 infinite intelligence and power, and capable of creat- 
 ing and governing this universe by means of his 
 own immutable laws. In a word, the teleological 
 argument, or the argument from evidences of intel- 
 ligent design, was strongly reinforced by the facts 
 of organic evolution. In point of fact, it was found 
 that the teleological evidences afforded by evolu- 
 tion far outweigh in real significance all that were 
 ever before adduced. 
 
 This, however, is by no means the most important 
 part of the evidences for theism to be found in the 
 facts of organic evolution. It is, in fact, no part of 
 the object of this volume to press the teleological 
 argument; although abundant facts will be devel- 
 oped suggestive of teleological conclusions, which 
 the intelligent reader will draw for himself. My 
 object is to show that the facts of organic evolution 
 afford abundant material from which to study the 
 subject of theism by the pure process of induction, 
 leaving nothing to the imagination, nothing to 
 
 3
 
 34 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 speculative philosophy. That is to say, I shall 
 undertake to show that the salient facts of evolu- 
 tion, as developed by the researches of anti-theistic 
 scientists, are susceptible of no other than a theistic 
 interpretation, without an utter abandonment and 
 repudiation of every principle of logical, scientific 
 inductive investigation. To that end I shall under- 
 take to prove that they have avoided a theistic in- 
 terpretation of their own facts, only by abandoning, 
 at all the crucial points in their inquiry, the plain- 
 est principles of induction, and soaring away into 
 the cloudy realms of speculative philosophy with- 
 out one fact, or semblance of a fact, to sustain their 
 hypotheses. 
 
 I shall show, for instance, that Mr. Darwin's 
 great principle of " natural selection," when consid- 
 ered as " the origin of species," is, in that sense, 
 without a fact to sustain it. Natural selection, or 
 survival of the fittest, is a potent factor in the 
 process of organic development, and no theory of 
 evolution could be complete without it. But it is 
 preservative of species, not creative. I shall sus- 
 tain this view by the opinions of such scientists as 
 Huxley, and I shall demonstrate it by facts presented 
 by such evolutionists as Haeckel. Mr. Darwin has 
 presented a formidable array of facts to demonstrate 
 the correctness of his fundamental theory of organic 
 evolution, and no unprejudiced person can deny that 
 he has abundantly sustained that theory. He has 
 also cited a great number of facts which he assumes 
 to have a bearing upon his subsidiary hypothesis. 
 Nevertheless, it is true that he has not cited one case 
 where anything more than a morphological species
 
 IN TROD UCTION. 3 5 
 
 has been produced, either by natural or artificial 
 selection. In this sense, therefore, his theory that 
 natural selection is the origin of species must be 
 relegated to the domain of speculative philosophy 
 without facts to sustain it, the very opposite of 
 induction. I shall venture to infer that his strenuous 
 insistence upon that theory may have been due to 
 one or both of two causes. One of these was his 
 hostility to Lamarck and his theory of " appetency " 
 as the cause of structural changes in organic life; 
 and the other, his desire to sustain the atheistic 
 theory that physical organism antedates, and is the 
 cause of, life and mind. 
 
 In reference to these questions I shall undertake 
 to show that Lamarck's or some cognate theory is 
 necessary in order to constitute a complete, coherent 
 theory of organic evolution. That is to say, no the- 
 ory of evolution can be complete, in the sense of 
 accounting for all the facts, if either Lamarck or 
 Darwin is left out. For that reason I shall go back, 
 with Haeckel, to the beginning of organic life ^ on 
 Jhis planet,and prove that mind antedates and is 
 the cause of physical, structural organism^ As these 
 crucial facts can be demonstrated at the beginning 
 of organic life, and are not so easily proven at any 
 other stage of evolutionary development, I shall 
 claim the right to hold that they are typical exam- 
 ples showing the cause of structural changes in 
 physical organism at all subsequent stages of organic 
 development. I shall lay particular stress upon the 
 foregoing considerations because of their important 
 bearing upon the question of the origin of life on 
 this planet 
 
 _ ^ xj . i 
 
 f P..* ' '-*-+ Co i-* _'< C &-*-* -t^i-1*-^^, '- ' *rf -**
 
 36 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 The latter is- the great question which it is the 
 prime object of this book to discuss. Two theories 
 are to be considered, and each will be treated with 
 special reference to the facts of organic evolution. 
 The atheistic theory will first be considered, for the 
 reason that it is more easily disposed of than the 
 other, owing to the acknowledged absence of facts to 
 sustain it. It constitutes, in fact, another striking illus- 
 tration of the alacrity with which atheistic scientists 
 will abandon the inductive processes of investigation 
 whenever the facts are against them. 
 
 The atheistic theory is that life and mind origi- 
 nated on this earth by " spontaneous generation " 
 from inorganic matter. That is the theory, and that 
 is all there is of it. That is to say, its ablest advo- 
 cates acknowledge that no fact has ever yet been 
 brought to light tending to prove that such a thing 
 is possible ; on the contrary, their greatest scientists 
 have spent years in patient and persevering efforts to 
 cause the faintest sign of life to be generated from 
 inorganic matter; and each one has been compelled 
 to acknowledge his utter failure. 
 
 In a word, I shall show by these facts, with others 
 equally significant, that not only have atheistic scien- 
 tists abandoned and tacitly repudiated the inductive 
 method at every crucial point in their investigations, 
 but that all that there is of atheism in evolution 
 consists of pure assumption, not only without facts to 
 sustain the assumptions, but in direct contravention of 
 all the facts of nature and of experimental science. 
 
 * The theory of the theistic evolutionist is that evo- 
 lution is God's method of creation; that life and 
 
 ^ mind on this earth had their origin in an antecedent
 
 INTRODUCTION. 37 
 
 divine mind, an omnipresent mind-energy, om-1 
 nipotent and omniscient; that this divine, intelligent 
 energy operates, not in contravention of law, not by 
 miraculous interventions, not by special creations, but \ 
 in pursuance of its own immutable laws, instituted 
 from the beginning; and that, consequently, the first ' 
 mind-energy that appeared on this earth was an ema- I 
 nation, in the natural order of events, from the Divine ji 
 Intelligence. 
 
 In undertaking to establish the essential truth of 
 this hypothesis I shall be guided solely by the ac- 
 knowledged facts of organic and mental evolution. 
 In other words, I shall adhere to the inductive method, 
 pure and simple. 
 
 In pursuing the investigation I shall again go back 
 to the beginning of organic life, for the obvious 
 reason that the nearer we approach to the source of 
 anything, the more clearly will the essential nature of 
 that source be made manifest; and for the further 
 reason that no one else, so far as I am aware, has 
 given adequate attention to the wonderful signifi- 
 cance, from a theistic point of view, of the phenomena 
 of life and mind as exhibited in the lowest form of 
 animal life. It must suffice in this connection to say 
 that the ingenuity of man could not devise a more 
 complete array of evidential facts demonstrative of 
 the divine origin of mind in protoplasm and its 
 potentialities through evolutionary development, than 
 is found in the monera. 
 
 Evolutionists tell us that the potentialities of man- 
 hood reside in that lowest animal organism. If man 
 descended from that organism, the proposition is 
 necessarily true; and I shall demonstrate its truth
 
 38 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 by indubitable evidences that atheism has not con- 
 sidered. In doing so, I shall prove more clearly that 
 the moneron derived its mind and life from God than 
 atheists have proven that man descended from the 
 moneron. In other words, I shall demonstrate the 
 truth of their evolutionary hypothesis by disproving 
 their atheistic conclusions. I shall not only prove 
 that the potentialities of manhood reside in the 
 moneron, but that the essential attributes of omni- 
 science there exist in embryo. Moreover, I shall 
 prove by their own showing that, differing only in 
 degree, the moneron is endowed with the creative 
 energy of omnipotence; that to that energy are due 
 all the structural changes that mark the steps in the 
 process of organic evolution ; and that all human 
 progressive development, from savagery to the high- 
 est possible altruistic civilization, is due to the normal 
 development of faculties existing potentially in the 
 moneron. 
 
 In the further argument of the question I shall not 
 only be guided by the facts set forth by the great 
 lights of evolutionary science, but I shall avail my- 
 self of their arguments as well. That is to say, the 
 leading arguments employed by them to prove the 
 theory of evolution will be carried to their logical 
 conclusions and shown to be the strongest possible 
 arguments in support of theism. For instance, the 
 argument based upon the law of heredity, which is 
 the chief corner-stone in the evolutionary edifice, 
 when carried to its legitimate conclusion will be seen 
 to demonstrate the logical necessity of a mind, ante- 
 cedent to the moneron, possessing powers identical 
 in kind with those actually or potentially existent in
 
 INTRODUCTION. 39 
 
 the moneron and its descendants. Any other conclu- 
 sion involves the logical necessity of presupposing a 
 break in the line of hereditary descent, an exception 
 to a law of nature, a godlike mind without an an- 
 cestral intelligence, an effect without an adequate 
 cause. 
 
 Again, I shall accept their analogical argument 
 from ontogeny, which is the history of the evolu- 
 tion of individual organisms, to phylogeny, which is 
 the history of the evolution of organic tribes. Hu- 
 man ontogeny, being an exact repetition of all the 
 salient features of human phylogeny, constitutes one 
 of the most conclusive arguments in support of the 
 theory of organic evolution. Both ontogeny and 
 phylogeny begin with an undifferentiated cell of pro- 
 toplasm, and in both cases that cell culminates in 
 man. But if the analogy be carried to its legitimate 
 and logically necessary conclusion, it necessitates an 
 ancestral mind for the moneron as well as for the 
 germinal cell of man, and for precisely the same 
 reasons. Certainly the analogy is incomplete with- 
 out it, and no scientist will deny the proposition that 
 science has never yet discovered any process by 
 which faculties have been acquired, either in on- 
 togeny or phylogeny, except by inheritance* The 
 atheistic evolutionist, therefore, cannot avoid the 
 conclusion that the moneron inherited its powers, 
 actual and potential, from a divine ancestry, without 
 repudiating his own logic, ignoring his own facts, 
 and abandoning the inductive method of scientific 
 research. All this he deliberately does when he 
 seeks, in the theory of spontaneous generation from 
 inorganic chemical compounds, to account for the
 
 40 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 
 
 divine potentialities resident in the mind of the 
 moneron. 
 
 When these arguments are fully stated and under- 
 stood, they will not only be found to establish clearly 
 the theory of the divine origin of life and mind on 
 this earth, but, at the same time, to confirm fully the 
 Christian doctrine of the divine pedigree of man. 
 Having clearly proven the latter hypothesis, I shall 
 then venture to reverse the process of inquiry, by 
 taking man as the basis and reasoning back to his 
 divine origin, with a view of finding what concep- 
 tions of divine attributes are derivable from our 
 knowledge of the faculties possessed by man. In 
 classifying the latter I shall be guided by the prin- 
 ciples of, and facts developed by, the new psychol- 
 ogy. By this I mean the hypothesis of duality of 
 mind, as set forth in my published works. 1 I shall, 
 therefore, analyze the faculties of the subjective 
 mind of man, as they have been revealed to the 
 scientific world by means of experimental psychol- 
 ogy, and show that those faculties, by simple en- 
 largement and extension to infinity, would become 
 the highest conceivable attributes of an omniscient, 
 omnipotent, omnipresent God of infinite and uni- 
 versal love, the God of Christian hope and faith. 
 In other words, I shall prove inductively that the 
 soul of man is " made in the image of God." Not 
 morphologically or anthropologically is man made 
 in the image of his Divine Father, but psychologi- 
 cally. The charge of anthropomorphism will not 
 lie against this conception of God and his attributes ; 
 
 1 " The Law of Psychic Phenomena " and " A Scientific Demon- 
 stration of the Future Life."
 
 INTRODUCTION. 4* 
 
 for the trend of the argument will be, not to show 
 that God is infinitely human, but to prove that man 
 is potentially divine. 
 
 In short, the conception of the Deity derivable 
 from the facts of evolution and psychology is of 
 divine immanence without pantheism, and of person- 
 ality without anthropomorphism. 
 
 Before proceeding to the consideration of the 
 scientific aspects of the question, I shall devote one 
 chapter to that phase of atheism which has been 
 designated as " agnosticism," with a view of showing 
 that the principles upon which the latter cult base 
 their conclusions make a.primafacie case in favor of 
 the religion which they repudiate.
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 
 
 Definition of " Agnosticism." Aggressive Ignorance. Mr. Her- 
 bert Spencer's "First Principles." His Charitable Effort to 
 harmonize Religion and Science. His " Great Unknowable." 
 His Numerous " Unthinkables." His Pctitio Principii. His 
 Dogmatism. His Statement of Fundamental Propositions. 
 His Lame and Impotent Conclusions. His " Basis of Reconcil- 
 iation." It is simply a Wholesale Acknowledgment of Igno- 
 rance. It strikes at the very Root of Christian Faith. It invites 
 Imbecile Acquiescence in Agnosticism instead of Scientific Inves- 
 tigation of Theism. Mr. Spencer's "First Principles" Re-exam- 
 ined. A Legitimate Conclusion Sought for. The Conditions 
 Requisite. The Fundamental Harmony of all Religions. No 
 Real Conflict between Religion and Science. It is between 
 Science and Man-made Theological Dogmas. True Science is 
 True Religion's Best Friend True Science is promotive of the 
 Highest Conceptions of, and the most Exalted Reverence for, the 
 God of Christian Faith. Science is Promotive of all Truth. 
 There are not two Antagonistic Orders of Truth. Truth the 
 only Basis of Reconciliation between Religion and Science. 
 Science furnishes the Data for the Inductive Study of Religion. 
 
 AGNOSTICISM is generally supposed to imply 
 an acknowledgment of ignorance of super- 
 mundane agencies and conditions. It is apparent, 
 however, that the agnosticism of science, as exem- 
 plified by those great scientists whose attitude in 
 relation to current religious beliefs necessitated the 
 coinage of a new word to express it, can be best 
 defined as aggressive ignorance. An " agnostic," as 
 exemplified by such scientists, is one who presumes 
 to define the limits of human knowledge, and upon
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 43 
 
 those limits to erect a barrier against all further in- 
 quiry. I need no better illustration than that afforded 
 by the writings of Mr. Herbert Spencer, who is ac- 
 knowledged to be the fairest and most unprejudiced 
 of all that great constellation of intellectual stars 
 whose coruscations have, as never before, illuminated 
 the path of scientific progress. 
 
 Mr. Spencer, in his charitable effort to harmonize 
 science and religion, 1 undertakes to mark the boun- 
 dary line between the " knowable " and the " un- 
 knowable," and to inhibit all effort, of either religion 
 or science, to look beyond the limits thus defined. 
 The " unknowable " is the entity which he invites re- 
 ligion and science to unite in worshiping; and his 
 recipe for securing absolute harmony between the 
 worshipers, the soporific agent, so to speak, by 
 means of which each is to be lulled into that somno- 
 lent condition in which distinctions are not observable 
 and opinions are relegated to the domain of " innocu- 
 ous desuetude," his recipe for securing harmony 
 consists in a mutual agreement that neither of the 
 high contracting parties shall affirm or deny anything 
 worth mentioning in relation to the hypothetical entity 
 that may be supposed to sustain a provisional exist- 
 ence on the " unknowable " side of Mr. Spencer's 
 boundary line. 
 
 The things which he invites the united hosts of 
 religion and science to ignore are numerous. The 
 most of them are cherished beliefs of the most en- 
 lightened men of Christian civilization ; but Mr. 
 Spencer disposes of them all with great celerity by a 
 method that is at once unique and effective, simple 
 
 1 See " First Principles," Part I, " The Unknowable."
 
 44 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 to the last degree, and easily understood and applied. 
 It consists in the employment of a phrase that Mr. 
 Spencer invented himself, apparently to enable him 
 to establish his " First Principles " by a method as 
 simple as first principles themselves usually are. 
 
 " It is unthinkable," is the polemical dynamite 
 bomb with which he demolishes those refractory 
 propositions which refuse to yield to the clumsy 
 weapons of logic. And it cannot be denied that the 
 " potential energy " of that phrase is incalculable. 
 The rapidity with which it has gone into general use 
 among a certain class of philosophers and scientists 
 as a labor-saving substitute for logic and argument, 
 shows that it supplied a long-felt want. 
 
 To do Mr. Spencer entire justice, it must be 
 admitted that he never employs it except in cases of 
 emergency. But in building up his " Great Unknow- 
 able," he felt compelled to employ the paradoxical 
 method of subtraction ; that is to say, he subtracted 
 a large and varied assortment of " unthinkable " 
 attributes from the God of Christian faith, in order to 
 increase the magnitude of an " unthinkable " entity, 
 an " inconceivable abstraction," which he dogmati- 
 cally designates as "The Unknowable." I employ 
 the word " dogmatically " with deliberation, for when 
 Mr. Spencer assumes to designate the Great First 
 Cause as " Unknowable," he deliberately begs the 
 question the vital question at issue between 
 religion and materialistic science. If he had chosen 
 a more modest term, as, for instance, " Unfathom- 
 able," it would have been more befitting the conser- 
 vatism and caution of true science, and no one would 
 presume to question the implied limitation of finite
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 45 
 
 intelligence. It is, in fact, not only an unwarranted 
 assumption, a petitio principii, violative of the 
 "first principles" of logical ratiocination, for Mr. 
 Spencer to employ the term " unknowable " as he 
 employs it ; but, as I shall presently show, the assump- 
 tion is not a legitimate deduction from the fundamental 
 premise of his argument. 
 
 In the meantime I wish to further justify my state- 
 ment regarding the monumental dogmatism of agnos- 
 ticism, and to show that I am justified in defining it 
 as " aggressive ignorance." As I have already inti- 
 mated, the term " unknowable " is in itself the very 
 quintessence of dogmatism, for it is in itself a decla- 
 ration, not alone of ignorance (agnosticism), but of the 
 impossibility of any one ever knowing anything con- 
 cerning the Great Abstraction of which Mr. Spencer 
 thinks he is thinking. The most aggressive part of 
 his dogmatism, however, is manifested when, in a 
 mild and roundabout way, to be sure, he denounces 
 religion as "irreligious" when it persists in be- 
 lieving some of his " unthinkable " propositions ; and 
 in like manner stigmatizes science as " unscien- 
 tific " when it presumes to inquire beyond the boun- 
 dary which separates what Mr. Spencer knows from 
 that which he does not know. In other words, when 
 religion persists in thinking that which Mr. Spencer 
 thinks is unthinkable, it becomes irreligious; and 
 when science tries to find out something that Mr. 
 Spencer thinks is unknowable, it becomes unscientific. 
 Obviously, under the limitations of his environment, 
 Mr. Spencer could inflict no severer punishment upon 
 the respective recalcitrants. We have, then, the 
 spectacle presented to us of the mildest, the gentlest,
 
 46 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 and in many respects the greatest, of all the agnos- 
 tics visiting his severest possible penalties upon those 
 who differ with him in opinion on questions of science 
 and religion. Torquemada could have done no more. 
 Mr. Spencer's statement of the major premise of 
 his argument affords a striking illustration of the 
 l~ axiom that the man who attempts to wage war 
 \ against truth invariably places in the hands of his 
 enemy the weapons for its defence. 
 
 His proposition, in its simplest form of expression, 
 is that " There is a soul of truth in things errone- 
 ous." This axiom he applies to the aggregate of 
 religious beliefs, declaring that this general principle 
 " must lead us to anticipate that the diverse forms of 
 religious belief which have existed and still exist, have 
 all a basis of some ultimate fact. . . . To suppose," 
 he continues, " that these multiform conceptions 
 should be one and all absolutely groundless discredits 
 too profoundly that average human intelligence from 
 which all our individual intelligences are inherited. 
 
 "This most general reason we shall find enforced by 
 other more special ones. To the presumption that a 
 number of diverse beliefs of the same class have some 
 common foundation in fact, must in this case be added 
 a further presumption derived from the omnipresence of 
 the beliefs. Religious ideas of one kind or other are 
 almost universal. Admitting that in many places there 
 are tribes who have no theory of creation, no word for a 
 deity, no propitiatory acts, no idea of another life, ad- 
 mitting that only when a certain phase of intelligence is 
 reached do the most rudimentary of such theories make 
 their appearance, the implication is practically the same. 
 Grant that among all races who have passed a certain
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 47 
 
 stage of intellectual development there are found vague 
 notions concerning the origin and hidden nature of sur- 
 rounding things ; and there arises the inference that such 
 notions are necessary products of progressing intelligence. 
 Their endless variety serves but to strengthen this con- 
 clusion ; showing as it does a more or less independent 
 genesis, showing how, in different places and times, like 
 conditions have led to similar trains of thought, ending in 
 analogous results. That these countless different, and yet 
 allied, phenomena presented by all religions are accidental 
 or factitious, is an untenable supposition. A candid exam- 
 ination of the evidence quite negatives the doctrine main- 
 tained by some, that creeds are priestly inventions. . . . 
 Thus the universality of religious ideas, their indepen- 
 dent evolution among different primitive races, and their 
 great vitality unite in showing that their source must be 
 deep-seated instead of superficial." 
 
 Later on Mr. Spencer alludes to the emotional 
 nature of the religious sentiment as follows: 
 
 " And if the religious sentiment displayed habitually by 
 the majority of mankind, and occasionally aroused even in 
 those seemingly devoid of it, must be classed among human 
 emotions, we cannot rationally ignore it. We are bound 
 to ask its origin and its function. Here is an attribute 
 which, to say the least, has had an enormous influence, 
 which has played a conspicuous part throughout the entire 
 past as far back as history records, and ia at present the 
 life of numerous institutions, the stimulus to perpetual con- 
 troversies, and the prompter to countless daily actions. 
 Any theory of things which takes no account of this attri- 
 bute must, then, be extremely defective." 
 
 This statement of Mr. Spencer's fundamental 
 premise is seemingly as fair and candid as the exact
 
 48 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 language of a great scientist could make it. Here 
 is a statement of a broad fact that every person of 
 intelligence recognizes and must admit. " There is 
 a soul of truth in things erroneous." " There is truth 
 in everything." What could be fairer? What could 
 be more conciliatory? Nay, what could be rarer 
 than the exhibition of such a broad and catholic 
 spirit by a great scientist when dealing with the 
 religious beliefs of all humanity? It serves to es- 
 tablish mutually pleasant relations between Mr. 
 Spencer and his readers, to say the least. It in- 
 duces in the latter a state of easy confidence, a 
 condition of " passive receptivity," as the hypno- 
 tists say, so that they are prone to accept further 
 "suggestions" without critical examination. 
 
 Now, let us for a moment examine Mr. Spencer's 
 liberal proposition with reference to the alleged 
 object of his essay. His avowed purpose is to 
 reconcile religion with science. To that end he 
 sets out in search of an " ultimate religious truth 
 of the highest possible certainty," a truth which 
 will not only reconcile science with religion, but 
 " one in which religions in general are at one with 
 each other." 
 
 This statement of his purpose, which is substan- 
 tially in his own language, naturally leads one to 
 believe that Mr. Spencer has undertaken a task in 
 the success of which every human being has the 
 highest possible interest. It is obvious that " an 
 ultimate religious truth of the highest possible cer- 
 tainty" must also be a scientific truth of equal 
 certainty, if true religion and true science are to be 
 reconciled. But the majority of mankind will agree
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 49 
 
 that the basis of such a reconciliation, if it is to be 
 of any possible value to mankind, must be not only 
 an ultimate truth of the highest possible certainty, 
 but also one of the highest possible value to science 
 and of utility to the world at large in the regulation 
 of human conduct. 
 
 This, however, is far from the kind of reconcilia- 
 tion that is the object of Mr. Spencer's ambition. 
 
 Now, let us briefly examine this " ultimate reli- 
 gious truth of the highest possible certainty," 
 this potent verity that is capable of obliterating the 
 distinctions between fetichism and Christianity, this 
 ultimate scientific truth that is the essence alike 
 of all religions and of all science. We have Mr. 
 Spencer's word for it, that on the religious side it 
 is this: "The Power which the universe manifests 
 to us is utterly inscrutable." On the scientific side, 
 this is the formula: " In its ultimate essence nothing 
 can be known." 
 
 Considering first the statement of ultimate " scien- 
 tific " verity, it must be admitted that it has the orac- 
 ular ring of a scientific formula. Moreover, it must 
 be conceded that it is a great fact, and a very incon- 
 venient one, by the way, that there are very many 
 things in this world that, to borrow the formula of 
 Lord Dundreary, " no fellow can find out." But 
 that great "ultimate truth" was not the original 
 discovery of Mr. Spencer, albeit the pains which he 
 has taken to demonstrate it; and to correlate it with 
 his " ultimate religious truth " would lead one to 
 suppose that he regarded himself as the Columbus 
 of ultimate verity and of human limitations. It can- 
 not be denied, however, that he was the "original 
 
 4
 
 50 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 and first " discoverer of the fact that the two formulas 
 are equivalent, nor will any one seek to rob him of 
 the glory due to one who has been able to found a 
 school of religious philosophy upon that assumption. 
 
 We may, therefore, concede that, in a limited 
 sense, his scientific formula is a statement of an ulti- 
 mate scientific truth. But by no stretch of liber- 
 ality of construction can his so-called " ultimate 
 religious truth " be classed even as a theological 
 dogma, much less as an undisputed and indisputable 
 religious truth. Like his so-called scientific truth, 
 it is simply Mr. Spencer's oracular way of making 
 a statement relating to the supposed limitations of 
 human intelligence. 
 
 Moreover, when Mr. Spencer offers, as a basis of 
 universal harmonic relations, the declaration that 
 "the Power which the universe manifests to us is 
 utterly inscrutable," he is guilty of that most heinous 
 of all logical offences, begging the question. For 
 that is the very question at issue between the Chris- 
 tian religion and science or rather between the 
 Christian religion and such scientists as Herbert 
 Spencer. The very essence of Christian belief in 
 God is that man necessarily sustains a natural rela- 
 tionship to his Creator of a most intimate char- 
 acter; and that, therefore, some knowledge of the 
 Great First Cause is not only possible, but inevitable. 
 No Christian has -ever denied the inscrutability of 
 " the Power that the universe manifests to us," in the 
 general sense of the term. But that it is utterly 
 inscrutable is a doctrine that strikes at the very root 
 of Christian faith, and is an utter repudiation of the 
 life and doctrines of the Great Founder of the Chris-
 
 A GNOSTICISM. 5 1 
 
 tian religion. And yet this is just what Mr. Spencer 
 does when he employs the words " utterly inscru- 
 table." 
 
 His attitude may be summed up in a very few 
 words : 
 
 He starts out professedly in search of the one 
 great, fundamental, " ultimate religious truth " that 
 underlies, and is the vital, constituent element of, all 
 religions, from " fetichism to Christianity." When 
 he finds it and presents it to an expectant world, it 
 is seen that it is not a religious truth at all; that it 
 is not a tenet of any religion on earth ; that it is a 
 proposition that has never been considered, either 
 as a fundamental principle or as a constituent ele- 
 ment of any religion whatever; but that, on the con- 
 trary, it is a proposition that strikes at the very root 
 of every religion worthy of the name; and finally, 
 that it is a statement that is and must be repudiated 
 as the crassest atheism by every Christian denomina- 
 tion. An acceptance of it by the religious and scien- 
 tific world as a basis of reconciliation, on the terms 
 proposed by Mr. Spencer, would at once arrest all 
 progress in the inductive investigation of the claims 
 of Christianity, and reduce the religious world to a 
 state of hopeless imbecility. For, be it remembered, 
 his prescription enjoins abstention from either affir- 
 mation or denial of any doctrine or belief concerning 
 God or his attributes; and this inhibition extends 
 alike to science and religion. His sole religious 
 creed his recipe for reconciliation is incarnated, 
 so to speak, in that portentous sentence : " The 
 Power that the universe manifests to us is utterly 
 inscrutable."
 
 52 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 And this is agnosticism. 
 
 The animus of Mr. Spencer's effort must now be 
 apparent. In searching for a formula of reconcilia- 
 tion he carefully avoided the statement of any prop- 
 osition confirmatory of the beliefs of any religious 
 sect or system that ever existed ; and in making his 
 selection he took care to formulate a declaration that 
 is in absolute antagonism to the fundamental doc- 
 trines of Christianity. 
 
 Furthermore, while no religious sect can indorse 
 Mr. Spencer's creed, still less can it be indorsed by 
 science. For if science stands for anything, it is for 
 truth. It is its province to search for causes of 
 phenomena, proximate and remote. There are 
 doubtless, many scientists who are delighted to be 
 able to formulate their atheistic views in Mr. 
 Spencer's terms ; but there are many others whose 
 quest is of inductive proofs of Holy Writ, who be- 
 lieve that scientific methods of research will yet re- 
 veal something of the nature and attributes of the 
 great " Power which the universe manifests to us." 
 
 It follows that Mr. Spencer's great scheme for the 
 reconciliation of religion with science has failed, and 
 must forever fail, for the reason that an acceptance 
 of his terms involves the total abandonment of all 
 that either one of them stands for. Science and re- 
 ligion can never be reconciled upon the basis of a 
 negative proposition that is neither religious nor 
 scientific, especially one that is expressly repudiated 
 by both. 
 
 Now, to put Mr. Spencer's propositions into com- 
 mon language, the meaning of which can be grasped 
 by common people, they may be stated thus :
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 53 
 
 To the religionist he says : There is just one ulti- 
 mate religious truth of the highest possible certainty 
 that you must admit before your religion can be 
 reconciled with science, and that is that you do not 
 know anything about religion. 
 
 To the scientist he says: There is one ultimate 
 scientific verity that you must admit before your 
 science can be reconciled with religion, and that is 
 that you do not know everything about science. 
 
 It is now quite obvious why it was that Mr. 
 Spencer's proposed Great Church of the Reconcilia- 
 tion was destined to prove a failure from the start: 
 neither party could conscientiously subscribe to the 
 creed. 
 
 Let us now re-examine the fundamental proposi- 
 tions with which Mr. Spencer started out and see if 
 we cannot find a legitimate conclusion. The propo- 
 sitions may be summed up, in Mr. Spencer's words, 
 thus: "In all religions, even the rudest, there lies 
 hidden a fundamental verity," " common to all reli- 
 gions," a " religious truth," in relation to which " all 
 religions are at one with each other," etc. As already 
 pointed out, Mr. Spencer promised to consider this 
 fundamental truth, but carefully avoided doing so. 
 He specifically mentioned one of the most obvious of 
 all the fundamental truths common to all religions, 
 its emotional nature, and distinctly promised 
 to consider " its origin and its function ; " declaring 
 that " any theory of things which takes no account 
 of this attribute must, then, be extremely defective." 
 He then dismisses that most important attribute 
 of religion by declaring that, as to its origin, it 
 " arose by a process of evolution ; " and, as to its
 
 54 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAM 
 
 function, it " must be adapted to the requirements of 
 existence," adding, with confessed reluctance, " we are 
 also forced to infer that this feeling is in some way 
 conducive to human welfare." 
 
 It seems almost incredible that Mr. Spencer should 
 have thus summarily dismissed the consideration of 
 an attribute of religion which, to use his own words, 
 "has had an enormous influence which has played 
 a conspicuous part throughout the entire past as far 
 back as history records, and is at present the life 
 of numerous institutions, the stimulus of perpetual 
 controversies, and the prompter of countless daily 
 actions." And yet this is just what he has done, in 
 order to give prominence to his lame and impotent 
 conclusion which has already been discussed. 
 
 Now, let us adopt Mr. Spencer's fundamental, or 
 major, premise as our own, and briefly inquire, What 
 is that underlying truth which is common to all reli- 
 gions, from fetichism to Christianity? In doing so, 
 let us employ the inductive process, and consider 
 nothing but the well-recognized facts pertaining to 
 the subject-matter; bearing in mind always that 
 we are discussing the mental phenomena of reli- 
 gious experience, and not the limitations of human 
 intelligence. 
 
 Now, this truth, when found, if it is to possess 
 any evidential value for any purpose whatever, 
 must possess certain well-defined characteristics. 
 Amongst these are : 
 
 i. It must correlate all religions that have ever 
 existed, on the well-recognized lines of religious 
 experience. 
 
 This is the general proposition. Then, if it is to
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 55 
 
 possess any evidential value in itself as to its divine 
 origin, or as to its natural adaptation to the require- 
 ments of existence, or its capacity to promote human 
 welfare, it must possess certain further characteristics, 
 namely: 
 
 2. It must be an instinctive attribute common to 
 all races of mankind above those of the lowest grade 
 of human intelligence. 
 
 3. It must be capable of evolutionary develop- 
 ment without change of its essential characteristic. 
 
 4. It must, in its every stage of progressive de- 
 velopment, be more and more " conducive to human 
 welfare." 
 
 5. It must, in its highest stage of development, 
 be found to be the concomitant of the highest 
 civilization. 
 
 6. It must be an attribute that, without change of 
 its essential characteristic, develops in power, if not 
 in intensity, and becomes more and more exalted in 
 its manifestations with every step in the progress of 
 science. 
 
 7. And finally, it must be an attribute the impli- 
 cations of which cannot be disproved by scientific 
 induction ; but which, on the contrary, attain a 
 higher and higher degree of probability the more 
 strictly and the more directly the processes of in- 
 ductive reasoning are applied to them. 
 
 Now, this attribute which correlates all religions 
 and in which all are at one with each other, con- 
 sists in the belief, with which each individual is 
 imbued, in a spiritual being, mightier than himself, 
 but not indifferent to his thoughts and acts, and upon 
 whom lie feels a consciousness of dependence.
 
 56 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 It is obvious that this applies alike to the fetich 
 worshipper and the Christian, together with all the 
 intermediate grades and varieties of religious belief. 
 The difference between religions consists in the 
 different conceptions of the nature and attributes 
 of the object of worship, the relations that exist 
 between that being and man, and the emotions and 
 practices which flow from the recognition of such 
 relations. 
 
 Now, let us see if this underlying truth answers to 
 the requirements above mentioned. 
 
 F"irst, then, it obviously correlates all religions. 
 (2) It must be an instinctive emotion, since it is 
 common to all races of men above a certain grade of 
 intelligence. That there are tribes of savages so 
 low in the scale of being that they have no idea of a 
 deity or of a future life, simply goes to prove that 
 religion is an inevitable outgrowth of progressing 
 intelligence. (3) That it is capable of evolutionary 
 development, and (4) that in its every higher stage 
 of manifestation it is more and more conducive to 
 human welfare, is shown by the fact that (5) in its 
 highest stage of development it is the inseparable 
 accompaniment of the world's highest civilization. 
 
 6. The history of the great conflict between 
 science and religion, or more properly between 
 science and ecclesiasticism, demonstrates the pro- 
 gressive character of true religion. There never 
 has been a conflict between science and religion. 
 Science has never waged war upon religion. It has 
 from time to time been forced to disclose the fal- 
 lacies of various theological dogmas, and a fierce 
 struggle has as often ensued. But whenever theol-
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 57 
 
 ogy has been forced to yield, religion has always 
 been the gainer; for every greatly advanced step 
 that has ever been taken by science has by just so 
 much enlarged, exalted, and refined man's concep- 
 tions of the Deity and his attributes. And no one 
 will deny that, in so far as man's conceptions of the 
 Deity and his attributes have been thus exalted, by 
 just so much have the religious emotions of rever- 
 ence, love, and worship been justified, increased, and 
 exalted. Science, therefore, in the nineteenth cen- 
 tury has, in this sense, continued the work which 
 Jesus began in the first century. For one of the 
 greatest services that Jesus performed for religion 
 and for humanity was his express repudiation of 
 the crude, anthropopathic conceptions of God which 
 had been handed down from the early Jewish 
 prophets. In their place he has given us a con- 
 ception of God, his attributes, and his relations 
 to man, that has served to intensify, purify, exalt, 
 and justify that instinctive emotion which is the 
 basic attribute of all religions. And science has 
 continued the work by revealing truths which serve 
 to confirm the intuitions of the Master and justify 
 his conclusions. Not that scientists have deliberately 
 set themselves to do this thing; for they have not. 
 On the contrary, each new scientific discovery has 
 been the signal for a shout in chorus that " religion 
 has been destroyed, and God has been eliminated 
 from the universe." But when the tumult subsides 
 it is always found that God still reigns and religion 
 still lives. A man-made dogma may have been 
 shown to be fallacious ; but religion is all the 
 stronger for the elimination of an error.
 
 58 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 Perhaps it is just as well that scientists have 
 chosen to assume a hostile attitude to religion; for 
 its friends can always rest assured that its survival 
 is due to its vitality and not to any lack of aggres- 
 sive effort on the part of its enemies. 
 
 On the whole, science has been religion's best 
 friend, and the Church is beginning to realize the 
 fact No intelligent Christian would now be willing 
 to see any one of the great discoveries of modern 
 science eliminated from the world's stock of knowl- 
 edge, however determinedly his church may have 
 resisted the innovation when it was first promul- 
 gated. No Roman Catholic would now consent to 
 a return to the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, al- 
 though his church fought the Copernican system 
 for more than two hundred years. No Protestant 
 would willingly consent to the elimination of the 
 Newtonian theorem from the world's stock of science, 
 although, as Luther had reviled Copernicus, so did 
 his successors denounce Newton because " he sub- 
 stituted gravity for Providence." l No intelligent 
 Christian would now consent to part with his knowl- 
 edge of geology, notwithstanding the rudeness of his 
 first awakening from the poetic dream of a six-day 
 creation. And so with the law of evolution. There 
 are few Christians among those who have given 
 intelligent attention to the study of the subject, who 
 could be induced to relinquish the lofty conceptions 
 of the nature and attributes of the Deity, growing 
 out of the contemplation of the infinite wisdom and 
 power displayed in the great law of progressive 
 
 1 See White's " Warfare of Science with Theology," Vol. I. pp. 
 1 6, 126.
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 59 
 
 development of organic and spiritual life from the 
 moneron to man. Much less could he be induced to 
 return to his former crude and anthropomorphic con- 
 ception of God as a being of limited intelligence, who 
 is obliged to supplement his work from time to time 
 in order to develop new ideas or to provide for un- 
 expected emergencies. In a word, the intelligent 
 Christian of to-day has learned that every step in 
 the progress of science, instead of destroying Chris- 
 tianity or weakening its vital force, serves but to 
 confirm its essential doctrines, and to stimulate to 
 their highest expression those emotions of awe, rev- 
 erence, and worship which are the common attributes 
 of all religions. 
 
 7. It now seems evident that the emotion of 
 religious worship possesses a profound psychological 
 and scientific significance. It is instinctive and uni- 
 versal. It becomes stronger with the increasing 
 intelligence of mankind, keeping pace with the pro- 
 gressive development of the other useful faculties of 
 the human mind. It suffers no diminution of vital- 
 ity by reason of scientific advancement. It finds its 
 highest expression in the most enlightened nations, 
 where it is the life of every benevolent and charitable 
 enterprise, of every institution for the amelioration 
 of human suffering or for the elevation of mankind. 
 These facts alone constitute prima facie proof that 
 the object of worship is a living reality. If it were 
 any other emotion than that of religious worship, no 
 scientist would hesitate to declare that to be the only 
 tenable conclusion. Scientists would point out the 
 impossibility of a faculty without a function, or of 
 love without an existing object of love capable of
 
 60 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 reciprocal affection. 1 And they would be logically 
 and scientifically right; for these are psychological 
 axioms. If, therefore, the love of God is not an 
 exception to the rule, that instinctive, omnipresent, 
 universal sentiment which has existed in every un- 
 perverted human soul since the dawn of creation is 
 an inductive verification of the fundamental tenet of 
 every religion. 
 
 If experience of the past is a guide to the future, 
 we are now in possession of the key to a solution of 
 the problem of the reconciliation of science with 
 religion. There are but two possible ways by which 
 this desirable consummation can be reached ; and as 
 either one of these methods excludes the other, there 
 is but one. 
 
 One of these methods is for inductive science to 
 utterly disprove the essential doctrines of religion ; 
 and the other is for science to prove the essential 
 truth of those doctrines beyond the possibility of a 
 rational doubt. That is to say, the proof should at 
 least be so conclusive that science can no longer 
 decide against the claims of religion on a priori 
 grounds; so conclusive that the burden of proof 
 will rest upon the opponents of religion, so con- 
 clusive that no other hypothesis will account for all 
 the facts. 
 
 As we have seen, scientists have already tried the 
 first method and failed. Thus far every induction 
 of modern science has tended to confirm the essen- 
 tial doctrines of the Church. Only the non-essential 
 dogmas of theology have been shaken. It is reason- 
 
 1 For a fuller statement of this argument, see "The Law of 
 Psychic Phenomena," page 408.
 
 AGNOSTICISM. 6 1 
 
 able to suppose, therefore, that further inductions 
 will still further confirm the essentials. This sup- 
 position is strongly reinforced by two considera- 
 tions. One is that the study of those inductive 
 sciences that directly or indirectly concern religion 
 has thus far been largely in the hands of those who 
 are either opposed or indifferent to the claims of 
 religion. The other is that the friends of religion 
 have thus far given very inadequate attention to the 
 inductive study of religion itself, and much less of 
 those sciences which have been heralded as the ruth- 
 less destroyers of religion. The mistake is obvious; 
 for if there is truth in religion it cannot suffer by 
 being brought into contact with any truth in science. 
 There are not two orders of truth in the universe, 
 one antagonistic to the other. If, therefore, there is 
 truth in science and truth in religion, the more 
 deeply those of science are penetrated the more 
 obvious will be their harmony with religion. It fol- 
 lows that if there is truth in both, science will yet 
 furnish the data for the inductive study of religion. 
 When that day comes, the " reconciliation " will be 
 inaugurated, and religion and science will read the 
 same Bible and study the same text-books of science, 
 and join, in a scientific and practical sense, in " look- 
 ing through nature up to nature's God."
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PSYCHOLOGY. 
 
 General Principles of Psychology illustrated by Facts of Evolution. 
 " The Law of Psychic Phenomena." Its Hypothesis sustained 
 by Facts of Evolution. A Summary of Fundamental Principles. 
 The Dual Mind. The Law of Suggestion. Objective and Sub- 
 jective Minds differentiated. Their Powers and their Limita- 
 tions. Suggestion defined. Hypnotism. Faculties of the 
 Two Minds tabulated. An Analysis of the Objective Mind. 
 Its one Faculty Inductive Reason. Its Defective Memory. 
 Its Dependence upon Cultivation and Refunctioning. Its Fac- 
 ulties constitute Pure Intellect. The Mind of Reason and 
 Judgment. Its Sphere of Activity purely Mundane. It is the 
 Product of Evolutionary Development It perishes with the 
 Body. The Subjective Mind. It is the Primary Intelligence. 
 It existed Millions of Years in Animal Life before a Brain was 
 evolved. It is the Ultimate Intelligence. Synchronic Action 
 of the Two Minds. Genius. The Brain not the Organ of the 
 Subjective Mind. The Dual Mind normally controlled by the 
 Objective Mind. The Law of Suggestion its Instrument. Vol- 
 untary and Involuntary Functions. One by the Objective Mind, 
 the Other by the Subjective. Exceptions in Deadly Peril. 
 The Subjective Mind is fitted especially for a Higher Plane of 
 Existence. 
 
 BEFORE proceeding with the consideration of 
 the main questions, it will be necessary to lay 
 the foundation by a brief statement of the funda- 
 mental principles of psychology, from which some 
 of my conclusions will be derived. It will be seen, 
 in subsequent chapters, that the basic facts of ele- 
 mentary psychology and those of organic evolution 
 are identical ; but we will first consider some of the
 
 PSYCHOLOGY. 63 
 
 fundamental principles of psychology as developed 
 by the researches of modern science. 
 
 In 1893 I published my first work, entitled " The 
 Law of Psychic Phenomena," in which I tentatively 
 formulated a working hypothesis for the systematic 
 study of all psychological, or, more specifically, 
 psychical phenomena. That hypothesis was the 
 result of more than thirty years of systematic search 
 for an underlying principle, which I had the faith 
 to believe must exist, and which would, when found, 
 correlate all psychical phenomena, and possibly re- 
 move them all from the domain of superstition. 
 More than six years have elapsed since the publi- 
 cation of that hypothesis, and as no fact tending to 
 disprove it has yet been brought to my attention, 
 I feel warranted in assuming its correctness, and 
 carrying it to its legitimate conclusions in every 
 field of psychological inquiry. 
 
 For a full discussion of the hypothesis and its 
 application to psychological phenomena in general, 
 I must refer the reader to my work above men- 
 tioned. It will be necessary, however, to make a 
 brief summary of it here, in order to make my 
 meaning, in other parts of this book, clear to those 
 who are not familiar with my earlier works. The 
 evidences of the correctness of my hypothesis, which 
 were set forth in my two former works, 1 will not be 
 repeated here, except where it becomes necessary 
 for the elucidation of the text; but further evi- 
 dences will be adduced which will in themselves be 
 conclusive. 
 
 1 " The Law of Psychic Phenomena " and " A Scientific Demon- 
 stration of the Future Life."
 
 64 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 The first proposition of my hypothesis may be 
 stated as follows : 
 
 Man is endowed with a dual mind, 
 
 Stated thus conservatively, the proposition will not 
 be seriously questioned by any student of psychol- 
 ogy who has kept pace with the discoveries of 
 modern science. I prefer, however, to state it pro- 
 visionally, thus : 
 
 Man is endowed with two minds. 
 
 I prefer this method of stating the proposition for 
 two reasons: First, because it appears to be true. 
 That is to say, everything happens just as though 
 it were true; and this is all that any scientist pre- 
 tends to expect in a working hypothesis. Secondly, 
 I prefer it because it admits of clearer treatment, 
 inasmuch as it requires less of roundabout phrase- 
 ology to express my exact meaning. The conclu- 
 sions derivable from the proposition are, however, 
 precisely the same, whichever way it is stated. I 
 adhere, therefore, to my usual way of expressing it, 
 and state, as my first proposition, that " Man is 
 endowed with two minds." 
 
 I distinguish them by designating one as the objec- 
 tive mind, and the other as the subjective mind. 
 
 The objective mind is that of ordinary, waking 
 consciousness. Its media of cognition are the five 
 physical senses. Its highest function is that of 
 reasoning. It is specially adapted to cope with 
 the exigencies of a physical environment. It is 
 the function of the brain ; and the brain is the ulti- 
 mate product of organic evolution. This, it may 
 be remarked parenthetically, is the mind with which 
 materialistic scientists deal when seeking to demon-
 
 PSYCHOLOGY. 65 
 
 strata, by means of the scalpel and other appliances 
 of experimental surgery, that even the soul itself 
 cannot survive the onslaughts of medical science. 
 
 The subjective mind is that intelligence which is 
 most familiarly manifested to us when the brain is 
 asleep, or its action is otherwise inhibited, as in 
 dreams, or in spontaneous somnambulism, or in 
 trance or trance-like states and conditions, as in in- 
 duced somnambulism or hypnotism. Any one who 
 is at all familiar with the phenomena resulting from 
 any of these mental conditions is aware that the 
 most wonderful exhibitions of intellectual activity 
 and power often result. The significant feature of 
 the phenomena is that, other things being equal, 
 the intellectual powers thus displayed bear an exact 
 proportion to the depth of the trance (to use a 
 generic term) ; or, in other words, the more com- 
 pletely the action of the brain is inhibited the more 
 phenomenal will be the manifestation of intellectual 
 activity. 
 
 Thus far I have not travelled outside the range of 
 common observation and experience, especially of 
 professional men. But it must be admitted that 
 these facts alone make a prima facie showing of 
 duality of mind. There are thousands of illustra- 
 tions of the law which amount to demonstrative 
 proof; but they cannot be discussed in this con- 
 nection. It may be remarked, however, that mate- 
 rialistic scientists themselves have demonstrated, 
 some of them unwittingly, that the brain is not the 
 organ of the subjective mind. 1 In later chapters 
 
 1 See cases cited in "A Scientific Demonstration of the Future 
 Life," chapter xv.
 
 66 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 of this book it will be shown that the proposition 
 is demonstrated by the facts of organic and mental 
 evolution. 
 
 The second proposition is this : 
 
 The subjective mind is constantly amenable to con- 
 trol by suggestion. 
 
 The meaning of this is that the subjective mind 
 involuntarily accepts as veridical the ideas or state- 
 ments of fact imparted to it. These statements or 
 ideas may be imparted orally by another person, in 
 which case they are called " suggestions ; " or they 
 may arise from the education of the individual; in 
 which case they are termed " auto-suggestions." 
 There are no exceptions to this law, although there 
 are some apparent exceptions. But it will invari- 
 ably be found that the apparent exceptions are the 
 clearest possible illustrations of the absolute uni- 
 versality of the law. A common illustration of the 
 power of oral suggestion by another is witnessed 
 when a hypnotist declares to his endormed subject 
 that he is a third person. The alacrity with which the 
 subject accepts the suggestion, and the marvellous 
 fidelity to nature with which he will personate the 
 character suggested, are among the most striking 
 phenomena of hypnotism. Again, a striking illus- 
 tration of the force of an auto-suggestion, arising from 
 the education and belief of the subject, is afforded 
 by so-called spirit mediums. They are self-hypno- 
 tized psychics, and the suggestion arising from their 
 education and environment is that, when they are in 
 the subjective state, they are controlled by disem- 
 bodied spirits. This suggestion is accepted, of 
 course, and the supposed spirit is personated with
 
 PSYCHOLOGY. 
 
 the same marvellous fidelity to nature that charac- 
 terizes the performances of the hypnotic subject. 
 
 A corollary of the law of suggestion is that 
 
 The subjective mind is incapable of inductive 
 reasoning. 
 
 That is to say, it is incapable of instituting an in- 
 dependent inquiry by the process of collecting facts 
 for the purpose of reasoning from them up to a 
 general principle or law. Under the law of suggestion 
 it must obtain its data, or premises, from the ob- 
 jective mind. Besides, it possesses a higher power 
 than that of induction, a shorter road to essential 
 truth, namely, the power or faculty of intuitive per- 
 ception. This subject will be more fully treated 
 hereinafter. 
 
 The following table exhibits in condensed form the 
 results of a complete analysis of the faculties of the 
 two minds: 
 
 Objective Mind. 
 
 
 Subjective Mind. 
 
 Inductive Reasoning. 
 *i 
 ju Deductive Reasoning 
 ^ (Imperfect). 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 Instinct or Intuition. 
 Controlled by Suggestion 
 
 Deductive Reasoning 
 (Potentially Perfect). 
 
 Limitations. 
 
 Memory (Imperfect). 
 c 
 
 Pi Brain Memories of Emo- 
 tional Experiences. 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 Memory (Potentially 
 Perfect). 
 
 Seat of the Emotions. 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 Telepathic Powers. 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 Telekinetic Energy. 

 
 68 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 In undertaking an analysis of the faculties of the 
 two minds, one broad and pregnant fact stands forth 
 in bold relief, and that is that the only faculty which 
 belongs exclusively to the objective mind is that of 
 inductive reasoning. The other objective faculties 
 set down in the list namely, the power of deductive 
 reasoning and of memory are the necessary con- 
 comitants of induction. The reason is obvious: 
 deduction is a necessary concomitant of induction, 
 for the objective process of reasoning consists in alter- 
 nate induction and deduction ; and memory is an in- 
 dispensable concomitant of induction, for the obvious 
 reason that the latter presupposes facts to reason 
 from, and memory is the storehouse of facts. 
 
 It will be observed that these faculties, the con- 
 comitants of induction, are shared by the subjective 
 mind ; the difference being largely of degree. That 
 is to say, they are inherent and perfect in the sub- 
 jective mind; whereas in the objective mind they 
 are exceedingly imperfect, and depend for their 
 degree of development, primarily, upon laborious 
 cultivation ; and, secondarily, upon constant refunc- 
 tioning as a means of keeping them in a state of 
 efficiency. 
 
 Other faculties belonging primarily to the subjective 
 mind, e. g., the emotions, are represented 'in the brain. 
 Scientists tell us that every faculty, every emotion, 
 has its specialized cortical area. This is doubtless 
 true; but whether they will ever succeed in correctly 
 locating all the brain centres is another question. Be 
 that as it may, our emotional experiences, as well as 
 all other experiences that rise above the threshold 
 of normal consciousness, are registered in the brain.
 
 PSYCHOLOGY. 69 
 
 That is to say, each conscious experience creates new 
 brain cells, which in the aggregate constitute the 
 brain memories of our experiences. But they are 
 only memories. They are simply stored up facts for 
 the use of the inductive powers. They complete the 
 objective mental organism. The seat of the emotional 
 faculties is, nevertheless, in the subjective mind, 
 where, as we shall see later on, it was located aeons 
 before a brain was evolved in the process of organic 
 evolution. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the aggregate of the faculties*" 
 of the objective mind constitutes pure intellect. They \ 
 are simply the faculties of reason and judgment. 
 They constitute the judicial tribunal of the dual 
 mind. When properly cultivated and developed, 
 they sit in judgment upon every act of our earthly 
 life ; they regulate every emotion, they restrain every 
 passion and direct it into legitimate channels. In 
 short, reason is at once the tenure by which man 
 holds his free moral agency, and the power which 
 enables him to train his soul for weal or woe in this 
 world and in the world to come. 
 
 It is obvious that the faculties of the objective mind 
 
 ,^-7 r. i 
 
 pertain especially and exclusively/ to a physical 
 environment. It was evolved in response to physical 
 necessities, just as all other natural weapons of offence 
 and defence were evolved in the great " struggle for 
 life." It could be of no pqss^)le^adyantage as a_partpf 
 the mental equipment of the disembodied souj^ which 
 is endowed with the godlike faculty of intuitive per- 
 ception of that fundamental truth which the objective 
 mind must seek by the slow and tedious processes of 
 inductive inquiry. It should neither surprise nor
 
 70 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 alarm us, therefore, when material scientists demon- 
 strate the fact that the objective mind, being the 
 function of the brain, and inherent in that organ, 
 necessarily perishes with the body. 
 
 It will, in fact, become apparent, as we proceed, 
 that the subjective mind is the primary intelligence 
 with which all sentient creatures are endowed ; for it 
 existed untold millions of years before a brain was 
 developed in the process of organic evolution. It is 
 also the ultimate intelligence of man, for it survives 
 the death of the body, 1 and the consequent extin- 
 guishment of the objective mind. The latter, as 
 before remarked, is a product of organic evolution. 
 Like every other physical weapon of offence or de- 
 fence, it was evolved in response to the necessities of 
 a physical environment. It is specially adapted to 
 such an environment, and to no other. Its powers of 
 inductive reasoning enable man to grope his way 
 through the mazes of an environment of ignorance 
 and uncertainty, and gradually to distinguish between 
 the true and the false in the realm of physical life. In 
 that life it is the most potent agency known to man ; 
 for it enables him gradually to acquire a knowledge of 
 some of the laws of the physical universe, and thus 
 ameliorate his physical condition. In the realm of 
 human laws and human government it also finds 
 ample scope for all the powers it can ever possess. 
 But it is of the earth, earthy. 
 
 Before closing this brief summary it may be well 
 to remark that, whilst the two minds are each capa- 
 ble of independent action, they often act in perfect 
 synchronism. This accounts for many otherwise 
 1 See " A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life."
 
 PSYCHOLOGY. /I 
 
 inexplicable phenomena, those of genius being the 
 most conspicuous examples. The specific means by 
 which this synchronism is effected, or how it is that 
 the subjective mind exercises its power to inhibit 
 the action of the objective mind, is not at present 
 known. We can only be certain that it possesses 
 that power by observing the phenomena; that of 
 hypnotism alone demonstrating the power of the 
 subjective mind to inhibit the action of the brain. 
 Cerebral anatomists have not yet studied the subject 
 from the standpoint of duality of mind; and hyp- 
 notists are not agreed upon the condition of the 
 brain of a hypnotized subject. The old school of 
 hypnotists still adhere to the idea that the brain 
 must necessarily be the instrument through which 
 all intelligence is manifested. As long as scientists 
 adhere to that idea, there never can be any substan- 
 tial progress made in experimental psychology ; f or ^ 
 if psychic phenomena teach anything worth know- \ 
 ing, it is that the brain is not the organ of the i 
 highest intelligence in man, the subjective mind, 
 the organized intelligence of the human soul. I ^ 
 repeat, therefore, that the subjective mind is the 
 primary intelligence of all sentient creatures, and 
 the ultimate intelligence of man; whereas the brain 
 is a specialized physical organ of which the objec- 
 tive mind is the function; and it pertains as exclu- 
 sively to this life as does any other physical organ 
 or function. It controls the subjective mind in all 
 the ordinary affairs of this life in everything 
 except in matters of conscience and the primary 
 instinct of self-preservation because it is specially 
 adapted to the exigencies of a physical environ- ,
 
 73 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 merit. This it does by virtue of the law of sug- 
 gestion. But by virtue of the same law the subjective 
 mind can totally inhibit the action of the brain, 
 just as it can inhibit all sensation in the body. 
 Just how this inhibition is effected it is not my 
 present purpose to inquire. I leave that to the 
 cerebral anatomists, who will some day awaken to 
 the realization that they have a potent intelligence 
 to deal with that is not of the brain. It is probable, 
 however, that the inhibition is effected by the 
 simple process of withdrawing the blood from the 
 brain, as in ordinary sleep. Be that as it may, it is 
 certain that the subjective mind not only possesses 
 that power, but it can assume control over every 
 nerve, muscle, and fibre of the body. Ordinarily it 
 exercises habitual control over the involuntary func- 
 tions only, leaving the brain in control of the volun- 
 tary movements; but in cases of imminent and 
 deadly peril it inhibits the action of the objective or 
 reasoning mind, and seizes upon the whole nervous 
 and muscular system. In such cases feats of almost 
 superhuman strength and agility are performed, 
 pain is inhibited and fear banished, until the crisis 
 is past. 1 
 
 Little need be said, in this connection, about the 
 faculties of the subjective mind, as they will be 
 dealt with more at large in subsequent chapters. 
 Their names are indicative of their functions, and 
 all that needs to be said in this connection is that, 
 unlike the objective mind, each one of its faculties 
 and powers is obviously indispensable to the com- 
 
 *" 
 
 1 See " The Law of Psychic Phenomena " for a full discussion of 
 this subject
 
 PSYCHOLOGY. 73 
 
 plete mental equipment of a disembodied spirit. 
 Not one necessary faculty is lacking, and not one 
 faculty is superfluous, and not one faculty belonging 
 exclusively to the subjective mind performs any 
 normal function in the physical life.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 
 
 The General Theory of Evolution. Too well established to require 
 Full Discussion. The Pedigree of Man stamped upon his Physi- 
 cal Organism. The Three Theories of Evolution : Materialistic, 
 Agnostic, and Theistic. Darwin, Romanes, and Hacckel accepted 
 as Authorities for Facts, not for Theories. Facts showing Dual- 
 ity of Mind. The Brain not the Organ of the Subjective Mind. 
 The Genesis of the Human Soul. The very Lowest Form of 
 Animal Life. The Moneron. An "Organism without Organs" 
 endowed with a Mind. Quotations from Gates, Binet, and 
 Others. The " Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms." Their 
 Habits and Mind Capacity. Reflex Action discussed. Not 
 Adequate to account for Phenomena. All Vital Phenomena Pres- 
 ent in Non-Differentiated Cells. Wonderful Instincts of the 
 Difflugia. Romanes on Instinct. The Subjective Mind of 
 Man and Animals Identical. It is the Mind that is inherited 
 from Ancestry, Near and Remote. Instincts increase with Intelli- 
 gence. Primary and Secondary Instincts. New Ones devel- 
 oped in Game Animals. Change of Environment develops New 
 Dangers; hence New or Secondary Instincts. All Instincts 
 Inheritable. Subjective Mind of Man the Sum of Ancestral 
 Instincts. It antedated Brain by many Ages. Brain, therefore, 
 not the Organ of Subjective Mind. 
 
 THE general theory of evolution is too thor- 
 oughly established to require any defence at 
 this time; and it is too well understood to require 
 a treatise on the subject to enable my readers to 
 understand the full import of what I shall have to 
 say in the following pages. The pedigree of physical 
 man is too plainly stamped upon his physical struc- 
 ture to admit of a rational doubt of his descent, or
 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 75 
 
 ascent, from the lower animals. The steps of that 
 ascent are too clearly defined in the structure of the 
 lower animals to admit of a reasonable doubt that 
 the lowest protoplasmic unicellular organism known 
 to science contained the promise and potentiality of 
 physical manhood. Nor is it, in my opinion, open 
 to a rational doubt that the progressive steps required 
 to evolve man from the lowest form of animal life 
 were the result of an intelligent plan, and not of 
 chance, or of a series of fortuitous circumstances. 
 There are three well-defined theories of evolution 
 recognized by science and classified as follows: 
 
 1. Materialistic evolution, which denies every- 
 thing but matter and motion in the evolutionary 
 process. 
 
 2. Agnostic evolution, which postulates an un- 
 known and unknowable as the basis and explanation 
 of the process. 
 
 3. Theistic evolution, which assumes a God back 
 of all, working out results along the unalterable line 
 of natural law, and by physical forces exclusively. 
 
 There is another theory held by some, called the 
 development theory, which assumes the orderly 
 unfolding of the system of the universe under divine 
 guidance, according to a divine plan, and with 
 various divine interpositions or special creations. 
 
 These are Standard Dictionary definitions, but 
 they are sufficiently explicit for my present pur- 
 pose. They are mentioned for the purpose of show- 
 ing that the theory of evolution which I propose to 
 outline differs essentially from any of the recognized 
 classifications. It comes nearer to the definition 
 above given of "theistic evolution," but differs from
 
 76 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 that in not ascribing everything to physical forces 
 exclusively. 
 
 My hypothesis pertains exclusively to the evolu- 
 tion of animal life, and the concomitant psychologi- 
 cal development, from the monera to man. It 
 assumes a God back of all, working out results along 
 the unalterable line of natural law, but largely by 
 mental or spiritual forces. 
 
 I accept the general theory of organic evolution, 
 in all its fulness, as laid down by materialistic 
 scientists, such as Darwin, Haeckel, Romanes, and 
 other great lights; but I shall use their facts, and 
 to some extent their arguments, to demonstrate my 
 psychological theories. That is to say, I shall 
 attempt to show that their facts and their argu- 
 ments, carried to their legitimate conclusions, 
 demonstrate much more than is dreamed of in their 
 philosophy; that their facts prove just the opposite 
 to their materialistic conclusions, and that, instead 
 of eliminating God from the universe, or relegating 
 him to the domain of the "utterly" unknowable, 
 they substantiate the essential doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity relating to his attributes and his kinship to 
 humanity 
 
 The first in order for consideration will be the 
 evidences which the facts of evolution afford, (i) of 
 duality of mind, (2) that the brain is not the organ 
 of the subjective mind, and (3) of the genesis of the 
 human soul. 
 
 We will begin with the first appearance of animal 
 life upon this planet. I shall first quote from 
 Haeckel, first, because he is a recognized authority 
 among material scientists; secondly, because he is
 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 77 
 
 in some respects superior to Darwin, having written 
 later than that great pioneer in the science; thirdly, 
 because Darwin, in later editions of his works, 
 indorses Haeckel; and fourthly, because the latter 
 distinctly repudiates Christianity and the doctrine 
 of a future life. I cannot, therefore, be accused of 
 selecting my authorities from among those who 
 would indorse my views. He says : 
 
 " If we would now undertake the difficult attempt to 
 discover the phylogenetic course of evolution of these 
 twenty-two human ancestral stages from the very com- 
 mencement of life, and if we venture to lift the dark veil 
 which covers the oldest secrets of the organic history of 
 the earth, we must undoubtedly seek the first beginning 
 of life among those wonderful living beings which, under 
 the name of monera, we have already frequently pointed 
 out as the simplest known organisms. They are, at the 
 same time, the simplest conceivable organisms; for then- 
 entire body, in its fully developed and freely moving 
 condition, consists merely of a small piece of structure- 
 less primitive slime or plasson, of a small fragment of that 
 extraordinarily important nitrogenous carbon compound, 
 which is now universally esteemed the most important 
 material substratum of all the active phenomena of life." 1 
 
 Again, he says : 
 
 "The monera are the simplest permanent cytods. 
 Their entire body consists of merely soft, structureless 
 plasson. However thoroughly we examine them with the 
 help of the most delicate reagents and the strongest optical 
 instruments, we yet find that all the parts are completely 
 homogeneous. These monera are, therefore, in the strict- 
 1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 43, Appletons' ed., 1896.
 
 ?8 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 
 
 est sense of the word, ' organisms without organs ; ' or 
 even in a strictly philosophical sense, they might not even 
 be called organisms, since they possess no organs, since 
 they are not composed of various particles. They can 
 only be called organisms, in so far as they are capable of 
 exercising the organic phenomena of life, of nutrition, 
 reproduction, sensation, and movement." l 
 
 Here, then, we have the very lowest form of animal 
 life, " an organism without organs ; " a simple 
 mass of plasson, minus even the nucleus which be- 
 longs to the true cell, and therefore absolutely with- 
 out physical organs. And yet it is endowed with 
 a mind, an organized intelligence. The fact that 
 it adapts means to ends constitutes indubitable evi- 
 dence that it has carried on a mental process. A 
 living creature is a mind organism ; for it is mind, 
 and mind alone, that distinguishes the animate from 
 the inanimate. A cell is a living creature. A cell, 
 therefore, possesses a mind. 
 
 "Unicellular organisms," says Dr. Gates, "possess all the 
 different forms of activity to be found in the higher animals. 
 Thus the simplest cell can transform food into tissue and 
 other metabolic products ; and this is the basis of all the 
 nutritive activities and processes of the higher animals ; the 
 cell can move parts of itself and is capable of locomotion ; 
 and this is the basis of all movement in the higher animals 
 brought about by bones and muscles. The cell can feel a 
 stimulus and respond, and this is the basis of the sensory 
 faculties of the higher animals ; the cell can reproduce itself 
 by segmentation, and this is the basis of reproduction in 
 the higher animals ; the cell on dividing inherits the actual 
 
 1 Op. cit., p. 47.
 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. ?$ 
 
 qualities of its parent mass, and this is the basis of heredity ; 
 in short, the cell contains, in simplest form, all of the 
 activities to be found in man." l 
 
 Binet, in his great work, 2 corroborates all that Dr. 
 Gates alleges, and demonstrates the mistake of those 
 scientists who hold that all acts of micro-organisms 
 are due to " irritability," or reflex action. One of 
 the many phenomena mentioned to show the com- 
 plexity of the psychic life of micro-organisms is " the 
 existence of the power of selection, exercised either 
 in the search for food, or in the manoeuvres attending 
 conjugation. The act of selection is a capital 
 phenomenon ; we may take it as the characteristic 
 feature of functions pertaining to the nervous system. 
 As Romanes has indeed observed, the power of 
 choice may be regarded as the criterion of psychical 
 faculties." 
 
 In his preface to the American edition of his work, 
 Binet remarks: 
 
 " If the existence of psychological phenomena in lower 
 organisms is denied, it will be necessary to assume that 
 these phenomena can be superadded in the course of evolu- 
 tion, in proportion as an organism grows more and more 
 complex. Nothing could be more inconsistent with the 
 teachings of general physiology, which shows us that all vital 
 phenomena are previously presents non-differentiated cells" 
 (The italics are mine.) 
 
 Binet also quotes a very interesting statement of 
 the observations of Verworn, which reveal the exist- 
 
 1 See " Therapist," December, 1895. 
 
 2 The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms, Open Court Pub. Co., 
 Chicago.
 
 80 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 ence of curious instincts among the Rhizopods. The 
 Difflifgui ampulla, which inhabits a shell formed of 
 particles of sand, emits long pseudopodia which 
 search at the bottom of the water for the materials 
 necessary to construct a new case for the filial or- 
 ganism to which it gives birth by division. The 
 pseudopod, after having touched a particle of sand, 
 contracts, and the grain of sand, adhering to the 
 pseudopod, is seen to pass into the body of the ani- 
 mal. Verworn, instead of grains of sand, placed 
 small fragments of colored glass about the animal ; 
 some time afterwards, he noticed a heap of these 
 fragments on the bottom of the shell. He then saw 
 a bunch of protoplasm issue from the shell, repre- 
 senting the new Difflugia produced by division. 
 Thereupon the materials collected by the mother- 
 organism the fragments of colored glass came 
 forth from the shell and enveloped the body of the 
 new individual in a sheath similar to that encasing 
 the mother. These fragments of glass, loosely inter- 
 joined at first, were now cemented together by a 
 substance secreted by the body of the animal. 
 
 " Two facts," continues Binet, " are to be remarked in 
 this observation : first, the act whereby the Difflugia col- 
 lects the materials for providing the young individual with 
 a case, is an act of preadaptation to an end not present, 
 but remote ; this act, therefore, has all the marks of an 
 instinct. Further, the instinct of the Difflugia exhibits 
 great precision ; for the Difflugia not only knows how to 
 distinguish, at the bottom of the water, the materials avail- 
 able for its purpose, but it takes only the quantity of 
 material necessary to enable the young individual to acquire 
 a well-built case ; there is never an excess.
 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 8l 
 
 " It is interesting to note that the Difflugia does not act 
 differently from animals possessing more highly complicated 
 organizations and endowed with differentiated nervous 
 systems, as, for instance, the larvae of Phryganids which 
 form their sheaths from shells, grains of sand, or minute 
 slivers." 1 
 
 I have made these quotations, almost at random, 
 not to exhibit any special order of development, but 
 to show that in the very lowest form of animal life 
 in the simplest organism known to science, from 
 which man can trace his ancestry, there exists a 
 mind, a mind of most wonderful complexity, and 
 possessing transcendent powers, an instinctive 
 mind. This is the important point to be observed. 
 It is an instinctive mind, as distinguished from merely 
 reflex action. Romanes, in his great work, " Mind 
 in the Lower Animals," makes this clear distinction 
 between instinct and reflex action : 
 
 " The most important point to observe in the first in- 
 stance is that instinct involves mental operations ; for this 
 is the only point that serves to distinguish instinctive from 
 reflex action." 2 
 
 I have been thus particular in establishing the fact 
 that a mental organism exists in the very lowest 
 forms of animal life, for the reason that I propose 
 to show that this mental organism is the embryonal 
 archetype of the subjective mind in man. That is 
 to say, the subjective mind of man is a direct inher- 
 itance from that of the lowest unicellular organism, 
 
 1 Op. cit, Preface. 
 
 2 This observation is repeated in his " Mental Evolution in Ani- 
 mals," which see, p. 160. 
 
 6
 
 82 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 without a change in its essential characteristics save 
 that which is incident to development. 
 
 The subjective mind of man, therefore, is identical 
 with the instinctive intelligence of animals, differing 
 only in degree of development and complexity of 
 organism. I wish this fact to be distinctly borne in 
 mind, for not only is it the salient fact in the history 
 of organic and mental evolution, from the moneron 
 to man, but the inevitable conclusions derivable 
 therefrom are literally of infinite importance. 
 
 The steps and processes of this development are 
 clearly set forth in the works of such men as Dar- 
 win, Romanes, and other great biologists, to whose 
 works the reader is referred for a detailed treatment 
 of the subject. It may be said in general terms, 
 however, that the instinctive intelligence of sentient 
 creatures increases in range and complexity in exact 
 proportion to the evolutionary development of ani- 
 mal life from the lowest to the highest physical 
 organism. That is to say, at each upward step in 
 the phylogenetic series, new instincts are developed 
 to provide for the exigencies of changed environ- 
 mental relationships. The process is easy to under- 
 stand. 
 
 Instincts are divided by Romanes into two classes, 
 namely, primary and secondary. 
 
 Primary instincts are those natural, spontaneous 
 impulses that move animals, without reasoning, ex- 
 perience, or the intervention of objective intelligence, 
 toward the actions that are essential to their exist- 
 ence, preservation, and development. 
 
 Secondary instincts are impulses of like character 
 to the above, but were originally intelligent, and by
 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 83 
 
 frequent repetition have become automatic. Such 
 actions, after being performed for a few generations, 
 become as firmly established as the primary instincts, 
 and are then inherited by succeeding generations. 
 
 These added or secondary instincts are the results 
 of changed environment. That is to say, whenever 
 new dangers are to be guarded against, or new wants 
 are to be supplied, new instincts are developed. 
 Thus, as Romanes points out, " the development of 
 firearms, together with the development of sporting 
 interests, has given game of all kinds an instinctive 
 knowledge of what constitutes ' safe distance,' as 
 every sportsman can testify." l Romanes then quotes 
 from a paper on " Hereditary Instinct " by Andrew 
 Knight, as follows: 
 
 " I have witnessed, within the period above mentioned, 
 of nearly sixty years, a very great change in the habits of 
 the woodcock. In the first part of that time, when it had 
 recently arrived in the autumn it was very tame ; it usually 
 chuckled when disturbed, and took only a very short flight. 
 It is now, and has been during many years, comparatively 
 a very wild bird, which generally rises in silence, and takes 
 a comparatively long flight, excited, I conceive, by increased 
 hereditary fear of man." 2 
 
 It has also been noted by sportsmen that game 
 animals keep pace with the increased range and effec- 
 tiveness of modern firearms. What was a safe distance 
 fifty years ago is within easy range of modern weapons ; 
 but game animals have already learned the limits of 
 
 1 Mental Evolution in Animals, p. 197. 
 3 Phil. Trans., 1837, p. 369.
 
 84 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the new range, and consequently " make themselves 
 scarce " within its radius. 
 
 These are but samples of the vast number of illus- 
 trations of the principle involved ; but they serve to 
 show how new instincts are acquired and old ones 
 modified with every change of environment, and with 
 every step forward in the process of evolutionary 
 development of animal life and intelligence. It is 
 easy to see that, in the course of that development 
 from the moneron to man, the mental organism thus 
 developed must have become wonderfully complex, 
 even before man appeared upon the stage of being. 
 And when we remember that man inherited this al- 
 ready complex mental organism, and has since con- 
 tinued to develop it in a constantly increasing ratio, 
 it is easy to understand that a godlike mental organ- 
 ism necessarily resulted; and this we find in the 
 subjective mind of man. 
 
 Now, there are two things which must be distinctly 
 borne in mind in this connection : 
 
 The first is that all instincts are transmitted by in- 
 heritance from one generation to another from the 
 lowest to the highest physical and mental organism. 
 This is the shibboleth of science. This is especially 
 insisted upon by those scientists who imagine that a 
 demonstration of its truth eliminates God from the 
 universe. I accept their premises, but not their con- 
 clusions, as I shall show hereinafter. I accept their 
 premises because they are demonstrably true. I 
 reject their conclusions because they are demon- 
 strably untrue. 
 
 It is true that instincts are transmitted by inherit- 
 ance; and as Darwin, Romanes, and others have
 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 8$ 
 
 clearly shown, it is true of both primary and second- 
 ary instincts. Were it not true of primary instincts, 
 animal life would have become extinct before it 
 passed beyond the primordial germ in the line of 
 development. Were it not true of secondary instincts, 
 progressive development would have been confined 
 within very narrow limits; for it was by that means 
 that the species was enabled to profit by the new 
 experiences of individuals, incident to changing envi- 
 ronment. Hence it is that the subjective mind of j 
 man represents the sum of all the useful instinctive / 
 knowledge possessed by its ancestry, near and re- ( 
 mote, beginning with the lowest unicellular organism/ 
 known to science. 
 
 The second proposition which I desire my readers 
 to bear in mind is that this mental organism began 
 its earthly career millions of years before a brain was 
 evolved in the process of organic evolution. In fact, 
 according to the best authorities, the archilithic 
 period, or primordial epoch, which was the age of| 
 skull-less animals, consumed considerably more than 
 one-half of all the years that have elapsed since the 
 advent of organic life on this planet. Thus, Haeckel 1 
 estimates the comparative length of the archilithic 
 epoch as 53.6 per cent of the whole. During this 
 period the lowest vertebrates appeared, but a brain 
 was not evolved until a later epoch. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the primary intelligence 
 of sentient life, the instinctive mind, the mental organ- 
 ism that has since developed into that godlike intel- 
 ligence which we now recognize as the subjective 
 mind of man, existed and performed its functions 
 1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. pp. 11-18.
 
 86 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 with unerring prescience, without the aid of a brain 
 structure, for untold millions of years. We have, 
 therefore, the strongest possible a priori grounds for 
 assuming that the brain is not now, and never has 
 been, the organ of the subjective mind ; and if the 
 a posteriori proofs all conspire to confirm that hy- 
 pothesis, we can safely draw the most momentous 
 conclusions therefrom.
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 
 
 The Brain not the Organ of the Subjective Mind. Proven by its 
 Identity with the Instinctive Minds of Animals. The Latter 
 proven by its Continuity from Lowest Organisms up to Man. 
 Continuity proven by Comparative Analysis of Faculties and 
 Functions. Instinct in Lower Animals Identical with Intuition 
 in Man. Its Definition. The Deductive Faculty potentially Per- 
 fect in Subjective Minds of Animals as well as Men. The Emo- 
 tions are Faculties of the Subjective Minds of Men and Animals 
 alike. They antedated the Brain. Objective Mind is Emotion- 
 less. Induction and Concomitant Memories, its only Functions 
 or Faculties. Telepathy a Power of the Subjective Mind. 
 It exists potentially in Animals. Telekinesis a Subjective 
 Power. It is the Power that enabled Jesus and Peter to walk 
 upon the Water. It reappears in so-called Spirit Phenomena. 
 The Mysterious Motility of the Polycystids. Science cannot 
 explain it under Physical Laws. All Subjective Powers derived 
 from Lower Animals, beginning with the Unicellular Organisms. 
 Further Proof by Experimental Surgery. Scientific Search 
 for a Soul with a Scalpel. Materialistic Arguments from Cere- 
 bral Anatomy disproved. They have searched in the Wrong 
 Place for the Soul. The Soul is Immanent in the Body, not 
 Inherent in it. Proofs from Voluntary and Involuntary Muscles 
 and Functions. Time Reaction Different in the Two Minds. 
 Phenomena when Death approaches. Subjective Mind grows 
 Stronger as Objective Mind grows Weaker. Strongest Manifes- 
 tations in the Hour of Death, after Brain has ceased to act. 
 Death-Bed Scene when Governor Matthews passed away. 
 The Physician's Testimony. The Wonderful Power of Sugges- 
 tion then exhibited. Proofs from Experimental Hypnotism. 
 The Phenomena of Amnesia a Crucial Test. Spontaneous 
 Somnambulism. Proofs from Phenomena of Dreams. 
 
 T>EFORE proceeding to recite the facts demon- 
 -* strative of the proposition that the brain is not 
 the organ of the subjective mind, we must first show
 
 88 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 that the instinctive mind of the lower animals is 
 identical with the subjective mind of man. The 
 fact of continuity alone, if it can be shown with 
 reasonable certainty, is presumptive evidence of the 
 truth of the proposition ; for it would require a vio- 
 lent stretch of the imagination to conceive the idea 
 that an organized intelligence, once located in a 
 physical structure and performing its functions inde- 
 pendently of specialized physical organs, could sud- 
 denly change its method and organ of manifestation. 
 At least it would require the strongest kind of affirm- 
 ative evidence to substantiate the proposition. 
 
 Referring now to the table in Chapter II., in which 
 the faculties of the two minds are differentiated, it will 
 be seen that that of intuitive perception heads the 
 list of faculties of the subjective mind. I think no 
 one will dispute the proposition that this faculty in 
 man is identical with what is known in general terms 
 as instinct in the lower animals. It performs the 
 same functions in both, the difference being one of 
 degree and not of kind ; and they may, therefore, 
 be defined in the same terms. I define the faculty 
 as follows : 
 
 * Instinct, or mtuition, is the faculty possessed by 
 
 ' each sentient being, in proportion to its development 
 
 ( and in harmony with its environment, to perceive 
 
 or apprehend, antecedent to and independently of 
 
 reason, experience, or instruction, those laws of 
 
 ( nature which pertain to the well-being of the individ- 
 
 ^ual and of the species to which it belongs. 
 
 Instinct in the lower animals, as every one is aware, 
 is chiefly concerned in the preservation of the life of 
 the individual and the promotion of the welfare of the
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 89 
 
 species;,-, and as I shall endeavor to show later on, 
 the higher manifestation of the same faculty in man 
 is promotive of the same general object, the differ- 
 ence consisting in its higher aims and ever-broaden- 
 ing altruism. For the present it is sufficient to 
 remark that the objective mind possesses no faculty 
 akin to instinct or intuition. The faculty of induc-1 
 tive reasoning, as we have already seen, is the only , 
 distinctive faculty possessed by the objective mind, , 
 and that is the very opposite of intuition. - 
 
 The next faculty on the list is that of deduction, 
 which is potentially perfect in the subjective mind. 
 Inerrant deduction is the instinctive logic of the sub- 
 jective mind ; and this is as true of the lower animals 
 as it is of man. It is the concomitant of intuition in 
 the subjective mind, and of induction in the objective 
 mind. That is to say, both induction and intuition 
 deal with general laws; the one by the slow and 
 laborious process of gathering facts of experience, 
 and the other by immediate perception, antecedent 
 to experience and independent of reason. Deduc- 
 tion is the faculty which reasons from general laws or 
 principles to all legitimate conclusions; and it is, 
 therefore, the concomitant of both induction and 
 intuition. Induction, depending as it does upon 
 laborious cultivation for whatever degree of effi- 
 ciency it may possess, is necessarily imperfect ; and 
 hence the imperfection of its concomitant faculty, 
 deduction. On the other hand, instinct, or intuition, 
 is potentially perfect, and it is, moreover, inherent in 
 the subjective mind ; and hence the potential perfec- 
 tion of the deductive powers of the subjective mind 
 in every phase of its activity, from the lowest to the
 
 90 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 highest mental organism, especially when the activity 
 of the brain is totally inhibited. 
 
 The next on the list are the Demotions, These 
 obviously belong wholly to the subjective mind, since 
 they are a direct inheritance from the lower animals, 
 including, of course, all that existed before a brain 
 was evolved/* It is almost superfluous to add, in this 
 connection, that the " animal passions and propen- 
 sities " thus inherited, when regulated, elevated, and 
 purified by reason and conscience, contain the prom- 
 ise and potency of all that is capable of imparting 
 happiness and joy to the soul of man in this world or 
 the world to come. There is no valid reason for sup- 
 posing that the objective mind experiences any emo- 
 tion whatever. Scientists tell us that every emotion, 
 as well as every faculty, has its special cortical area 
 or compartment. This may be, and doubtless is, 
 true; but it does not follow that the emotions, as 
 such, are felt by the objective mind. On the con- 
 trary, there is every reason to suppose that the brain. 
 merely registers the conscious emotional experiences' 
 of_the^ subjective mind. That is to say, new brain 
 cells are created for every conscious experience of 
 the individual, emotional or otherwise, and these cells 
 are the receptacles of brain memories. But they are 
 only memories. The seat of the emotions is, never- 
 theless, in the subjective mind, where it was located 
 aeons before a braiffwas developed in the process of 
 organic evolution. 
 
 The next on the list is telepathy. There are many 
 who hold that telepathy is largely employed by 
 animals to supply their deficiencies in oral means 
 of communication. I have not sufficiently investi-
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 91 
 
 gated this question to warrant me in expressing a 
 decided opinion whether animals communicate with 
 each other by that means or not. But I have con-", 
 ducted a series of experiments which convince me , 
 that, under favo/able conditions, man may influence 
 certain domestic animals telepathically in a very 
 marked degree. Be that as it may, certain it is 
 that telepathy is a faculty of the subjective mind 
 of man, and the power must therefore have existed, 
 potentially, in that of his ancestry, near and remote. 
 It is also certain that the objective mind of man 
 possesses no power akin to telepathy. 
 
 Of telekinetic energy little need be said in this 
 immediate connection. It is the power of produc- 
 ing motion in ponderable bodies without physical 
 contact or connection. It is that power which is 
 sometimes manifested in so-called spirit phenomena, 
 such as table-lifting, rapping, slate-writing, et hoc 
 genus omne. It is that power which is sometimes 
 manifested in the levitation of the body of the 
 psychic. It is that power which enabled Jesus 
 and Peter to walk upon the water. It is manifestly 
 a power of the subjective mind, for no such energy 
 has ever been manifested in the objective mind. 
 There is no evidence clearly demonstrative that it 
 is possessed by any of the animal kingdom lower 
 than man ; although certain animals possess a mys- 
 terious energy that material science has never been 
 able to account for. For instance, what is that 
 wonderful energy that enables certain birds to fly 
 directly against a strong wind without the slightest 
 visible motion of their wings?* Again, what is that 
 mysterious power that enables certain micro-organ-
 
 92 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 isms to propel themselves through a liquid in the 
 absence of physical organs of locomotion? Speak- 
 ing of this subject, Binet i has this to say : 
 
 " The Polycystids have a very peculiar manner of moving ; 
 the motion is one of perfect translation, uniform and 
 rectilinear ; the animal seems to slide all of a piece over 
 the object plate ; it can go to the right, to the left, stay 
 its motion and resume it again ; it is free in directing its 
 movements. Now, during this movement nothing can be 
 seen to take place in the body from within or without. 
 An analogous phenomenon is to be observed in the 
 Diatomes. Some scientists have wished to explain the 
 mysterious motion by translation executed by the Gre- 
 garines, as being due to an imperceptible undulation of 
 the sarcode ; but if there was any undulation whatever, 
 one ought to observe a correlative movement in the 
 granules inside ; now, this is something that is never seen. 
 
 " Thus there still exists a great deal of obscurity concern- 
 ing the principles determining motion among the proto- 
 organisms. The theories based upon muscular contraction 
 that have been propounded from observing higher animals, 
 are by no means sufficient to explain the phenomena of 
 motility among certain Protozoa and Protophytes." (The 
 italics are mine.) 
 
 Now, I do not undertake to say that the energy 
 thus displayed is identical with telekinesis as mani- 
 fested in the human organism. But since it is true, 
 as the materialistic scientists tell us, that the potential 
 of manhood resides in the amoebae ; and since it is de- 
 monstrably true that man is endowed with telekinetic 
 energy, there is no a priori ground for denying its 
 
 1 Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms, p. 19.
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 93 
 
 existence in the amoebae. We are at least warranted 
 in assuming, provisionally, that theory to be the true 
 one until materialistic science can give us some sort 
 of explanation of the phenomenon on other grounds. 
 
 It is not, however, necessary to the validity of 
 our argument to prove that unicellular organisms 
 phenomenally manifest telekinetic energy. Nor do 
 I assume it to be true. Jt is sufficient to know that 
 man is thus endowed, and that such powers reside in 
 his subjective mental organism. That being true, it 
 follows that the same energy existed potentially in 
 his ancestry, near and remote. 
 
 It will thus be seen that indubitable evidence exists 
 in every faculty of the subjective mind, of its deriva- 
 tion from the lower animals, the difference being of 
 degree. That is to say, the function of instinct is 
 the same in man as in the lower animals; for all 
 impulses, desires, or emotions which are promotive 
 of the well-being of the individual or of the species, 
 belong to the domain of instinct or intuition. And 
 this is true whether they are manifested in the lower 
 animals in the impulses of self-preservation and re- 
 production, or in the noblest acts or impulses of man, 
 when they are promotive of the general welfare of 
 humanity, physically, mentally, morally, or spiritually. 
 
 The fact of the continuity of this intelligence being 
 thus established, we have a right to assume that, since 
 it began its career and continued to perform its func- 
 tions for millions of years independently of a cerebral 
 organism, it continues to perform its functions inde- 
 pendently of the mental organism which has its seat 
 in the brain. I repeat, therefore, with added emphasis, 
 that there is no a priori ground or reason for suppos-
 
 94 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 ing that the brain is the organ of the subjective 
 mind. Now, if we find that all a posteriori proofs 
 tend in the same direction we may safely assume 
 the truth of the proposition to be scientifically 
 established. 
 
 I will now briefly state a few of the admitted facts 
 bearing upon this question. Fortunately for my 
 purpose, the materialistic scientists have themselves 
 demonstrated the truth of the proposition by the 
 use of the scalpel. Thus, ex-Surgeon-General Ham- 
 mond, in his presidential address before the New 
 York Neurological Society, showed that certain 
 faculties of the mind do not have their seat in the 
 brain. 1 In his great work on Insanity 2 he reiterates 
 his declaration, and demonstrates by many original 
 experiments that the brain is not the organ of the 
 instinctive faculties. Among other experiments, he 
 totally eliminated the brains of certain animals, and 
 found that the instinctive functions were performed 
 precisely as before. He quotes many eminent au- 
 thorities to sustain his position, and explicitly declares 
 that the instinctive faculties do not reside in the 
 brain. He declares it as his opinion that they are 
 " seated exclusively in the medulla oblongata, or in 
 the spinal cord, or in both those organs." Now, 
 those faculties which are found not to be located in 
 the brain are, as I have already pointed out, all 
 faculties of the subjective mind. 
 
 I am not disposed, however, to agree with Dr. 
 Hammond in his confident statement that those 
 faculties are located " exclusively " in any one organ 
 
 1 See Proceedings of the New York Neurological Society for 1875. 
 a A Treatise on Insanity in its Medical Relations : Appletons,
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 95 
 
 of the body, much as I admire him for his genius 
 and his vast learning. That declaration he doubtless 
 made without duly considering all the facts collateral 
 to the subject he was then investigating. Be that as 
 it may, he has succeeded in demonstrating duality 
 of mind by the use of the scalpel ; and that is the 
 favorite instrument of the material scientists when 
 they set out in search for the human soul. And 
 they have cut and carved, weighed and measured and 
 chemically analyzed the brains of men, living 1 and 
 dead ; and because they failed to find a soul in the 
 brain they dogmatically declare that man has no soul. 
 Dr. Hammond, however, has demonstrated that they 
 have all along been looking for it in the wrong place; 
 but as he was not looking for a soul at the time, he 
 did not recognize it when he discovered it. 
 
 Materialistic scientists have succeeded in demon- 
 strating that the objective mind is a function of the 
 brain, and that it is inherent in the brain. They have 
 demonstrated that each faculty or sense has a cortical 
 area, or brain centre, exclusively its own ; and that 
 when one of the brain centres is eliminated or para- 
 lyzed, the corresponding sense is destroyed. " Thus," 
 they argue, " a part of the mind is forever obliterated ; 
 and it follows that when all the brain centres are de- 
 stroyed the whole mind is obliterated." Their con- 
 clusion is, of course, that there can be no such thing 
 as a future life. 
 
 Now, there can be no doubt of the correctness of 
 
 their facts, nor of the soundness of their reasoning, 
 
 so far as they pertain to the objective mind. And 
 
 if that were the only mental organism existent in 
 
 1 Vide Washington Irving Bishop's taking off.
 
 y> 
 
 96 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 man, vain would be his hope of a future life. The 
 objective mind is the function of the brain. It is, 
 therefore, inherent in the brain, and necessarily per- 
 ishes with that organ. 
 
 But it does not necessarily follow that the subjec- 
 tive mind is inherent in any one or more organs of 
 the body. On the contrary, all the facts tend to 
 prove that it exists independently of any specialized 
 organ whatever. We have already seen that the 
 monera are without organs ; and yet the subjective 
 mind exists in them, and performs its functions just as 
 perfectly, in proportion to its stage of development, 
 as it does in the most highly organized human being. 
 Again, the facts of telekinesis demonstrate the propo- 
 sition that the subjective mind can exercise complete 
 control over unorganized matter. 
 
 These facts are profoundly significant, and point 
 unmistakably to the conclusion that the soul is a self- 
 existent entity and does not inhere in any organ of 
 "" the body which it inhabits. In other words, the soul 
 \ is immanent, that is, indwelling, in the body, just as 
 God is immanent in the physical universe, but not in- 
 herent in it. That is to say, as God does not depend 
 upon the existence of the physical universe for the 
 continuance of his own existence, neither is the exist- 
 ence of the soul dependent upon that of the body. 
 
 Upon no other hypothesis can the immortality of 
 the soul be scientifically or logically predicated ; and 
 I repeat, therefore, and state it as a scientific prop- 
 osition, that the soul is immanent, and not_inherent t 
 in the body. 
 
 It follows that the mind of the soul, or subjective 
 mind, does not inhere in any special organ or organs
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 97 
 
 if the body ; although it employs those organs in 
 phenomenally manifesting itself. It seems extremely 
 probable that it pervades every bone, muscle, sinew, 
 fibre, and tissue of the body. Certain it is that it is 
 potentially able to control them all, and this is one of 
 the evidences of its immanence in every part of the 
 body. 
 
 It is well known that it habitually controls the in- 
 voluntary muscles and functions; and that the object- 
 ive mind, through the brain and the nerve ganglia 
 connected therewith, normally controls the voluntary 
 muscles and functions of the physical organism. 
 The subjective mind has, therefore, normally the 
 greater part of the work to do ; for its domain ex- 
 tends from the centre to the circumference, from 
 the action of the heart to the metabolism of every 
 cell of which the whole body is composed. 
 
 Now, a very important and significant fact in this 
 connection is that the functions of the two minds are 
 not mutually interchangeable. Thus, the objective 
 mind cannot, of its own volition, move one purely 
 involuntary muscle. Reciprocity, or joint control, is 
 possible only in the mixed muscles, such as the 
 sphincters and the organs of respiration. But of the 
 purely involuntary muscles the objective mind has 
 no direct, volitional control. On the other hand, the 
 subjective mind can, and often does, take entire con- 
 trol of the whole body, and wields it at its will. This 
 can be brought about experimentally by means of 
 hypnotism. That is to say, when the brain functions 
 are entirely inhibited, the subjective mind can be 
 made to dominate the whole physical system. It 
 almost invariably occurs when the body is in immi- 
 
 7
 
 98 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 ~ nent and deadly peril. In such a crisis the objective 
 
 senses are benumbed, the brain ceases to act, and a 
 condition of anaesthesia supervenes; but, under the 
 
 i control of the subjective mind, the body acts with 
 preternatural rapidity and precision, and feats ot 
 strength are performed that would be absolutely im- 
 possible under normal conditions. 1 Spontaneous 
 
 j somnambulism furnishes many familiar illustrations 
 of subjective control over both the voluntary and the 
 involuntary muscular and nervous systems. 
 
 I have cited these well-known facts for the purpose 
 of showing how much more intimate and pervasive 
 must be the connection between the subjective mind 
 and the body than that which obtains between the 
 objective mind and the body. The one controls the 
 whole body without reference to specialized organs, 
 and the other is limited in its sphere of activity, and 
 depends upon a highly specialized physical organ 
 the brain for whatever efficiency it may possess in 
 its limited domain. The subjective mind, as shown 
 in its phylogenetic history, acts with equal efficiency 
 in a highly specialized organism, with the functions 
 of the brain in total abeyance, as in hypnotism; or 
 in a crude physical organism, destitute of a brain, as 
 in the animals of the archilithic epoch, or in animals 
 destitute of any physical organs whatever, as in the 
 monera. 
 
 The difference being thus provisionally established, 
 we might reasonably expect to find that the time 
 limit of reaction to peripheral stimuli would be mate- 
 rially decreased during hypnosis. I say we might 
 
 1 For a full discussion of this phenomenon, see " The Law of 
 Psychic Phenomena."
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 99 
 
 reasonably expect this result, for the reason that 
 when normal conditions prevail, that is, when the 
 objective mind is in control, and a stimulus is applied 
 to an extremity, say the foot, it requires a meas- 
 urable length of time for the afferent nerves to 
 convey the message to the brain, and then for the 
 efferent nerves to convey a return message to the 
 extremity, suggesting its removal from the source of 
 irritation. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, 
 that if the subjective mind is in control, and if it 
 pervades the whole body, the message would reach 
 the seat of control in less time than it takes to send 
 a message through one set of nerves from the foot to 
 the brain and to receive a reply from the brain to the 
 foot through another set of nerves. 
 
 Accordingly, we find, from the experiments of 
 Professor G. Stanley Hall and others, that the_time 
 limit of react iqn_in_a hypnotized subject is decreased 
 nearly one half as compared with that of the same 
 subject in a normal condition. I am not unaware of 
 the fact that Professor James, of Harvard, and some 
 others, have tried the same experiment with nega- 
 tive results. But a negative result possesses no evi- 
 dential value whatever when it is confronted with 
 positive results such as those of Professor Hall. A 
 thousand unsuccessful experiments prove nothing 
 when they are offset by one successful experiment. 
 I do not, however, regard this difference in the 
 time of reaction as by any means conclusive; but 
 it is a factor in the problem which is entitled to 
 consideration ; for it is one of the series of phe- 
 nomena that we might expect to find, if the hy- 
 pothesis is correct, that the soul is immanent in the
 
 100 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 whole body, and not localized or inherent in any 
 part of it. 
 
 Aside from the surgical experiments mentioned, 
 however, some of the strongest proofs of the truth 
 of this hypothesis are found in the phenomena imme- 
 diately preceding the death of the body and in the 
 phenomena of hypnotism. 
 
 When death approaches, we find the observable 
 phenomena to be precisely what we should have a 
 right to expect if it is true that the soul of man is 
 immortal, and that it is therefore immanent, and 
 not inherent, in the body. We also find that the 
 objective mind, on the approach of death, exhibits 
 precisely the phenomena which we should have a 
 right to anticipate if it is true that it is inherent 
 in the brain, and consequently perishes with that 
 organ. 
 
 The respective phenomena of the two minds, then 
 exhibited, are simply these : 
 
 The objective mind, in exact proportion to the 
 growing weakness of the physical organism, ceases 
 to perform its functions in perfection ; and it is 
 generally, if not always, completely obliterated 
 before final dissolution takes place. Materialistic 
 scientists have taken great pains to demonstrate 
 this fact, because it is demonstrative that the mind 
 (objective) is dependent upon a physical organism 
 for its existence; and as that class of scientists 
 know of no other mind than that of which the brain 
 is the organ, they easily and logically decide that 
 man is not destined to a future life. We may 
 therefore accept their facts, but not their conclu- 
 sions; although it must be said, in all candor, that
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. IOI 
 
 if the brain is the organ of all that constitutes the 
 intelligence of man, their conclusions are legitimate 
 and cannot be successfully refuted. 
 
 On the other hand, the phenomenal manifestations 
 of the subjective mind become more and more pro- 
 nounced as death approaches and the body grows 
 feeble; and its strongest manifestations are made 
 in the very hour of dissolution. This fact is attested 
 by all the records of psychic manifestations, includ- 
 ing those of the Society for Psychical Research. 1 
 Many instances are recorded of most wonderful 
 psychic manifestations, at the hour of death, by 
 persons who had never before possessed any phe- 
 nomenal psychic power whatever. The publications 
 of the Society for Psychical Research abound in 
 well-authenticated instances where telepathic mes- 
 sages were sent to distant friends, at the hour of 
 death, announcing the event and describing the 
 tragic details. 
 
 It is, in fact, the ultimate phenomenal manifesta- 
 tion of the universal law of psychic activity that the 
 more perfectly quiescent the brain becomes the 
 stronger become the manifestations of the subjec- 
 tive mind. This, I repeat, is a universal law, 
 beginning with the lightest stage or degree of 
 hypnotic sleep and ending in ecstasis or in death. 
 In the supreme hour, therefore, after the brain has 
 forever ceased to perform its functions, and the 
 objective mind is totally extinct, there is an inter- 
 val before the soul takes its final departure in which 
 it shines forth with phenomenal lustre, to give as- 1 
 surance to the world that the death of the body is \ 
 
 1 See " Phantasms of the Living."
 
 102 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 1 but the birth of the soul into a higher and a more 
 
 I perfect life. & ^-^^ <^> * 
 
 This phenomenon is a part of almost every death- 
 bed scene, although it is comparatively rare that it 
 is so strikingly manifested as to attract attention. 
 It is well known to almost every one who is familiar 
 
 I with the phenomena of death, that, just previous to 
 final dissolution, the mind of the patient suddenly 
 brightens, pain ceases, and other symptoms of con- 
 valescence often supervene to such an extent that 
 
 i the friends are filled with renewed hope. The 
 experienced physician knows, however, how illusive 
 
 : are such hopes and how soon they are to be blasted. 
 The psychologist knows that the supreme moment 
 has arrived, that the brain has forever ceased its 
 
 1 functions, and that the mind of the immortal part of 
 man has phenomenally demonstrated its potential 
 energy, its independence of bodily conditions. 
 
 One of the most striking exhibitions of this phe- 
 nomenon that have ever come under my notice was 
 witnessed at the death-bed of ex-Governor Claude 
 Matthews, of Indiana, in 1898; and I cannot more 
 appropriately close this part of my argument than 
 by relating the circumstance. 
 
 On August 29, 1898, the morning papers con- 
 tained the following Associated Press report, which 
 is as concise and intelligent as it is possible to 
 make it ; and it is therefore reproduced entire : 
 
 " Wingate, Ind., Aug. 28. At 6.30 o'clock this morn- 
 ing at the quiet Meharry homestead, where he was taken 
 immediately after his sudden affliction, ex-Gov. Claude 
 Matthews passed away peacefully, surrounded by his wife 
 and all the other members of his immediate family.
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 103 
 
 "There was prayer service, accompanied by the singing of 
 hymns, at the bedside of the dying ex-Governor. Mrs. 
 Matthews was very much affected, and stated that she 
 would give anything in the world if her husband would 
 manifest by a single word his faith in Jesus. About three 
 o'clock the minister in the course of the services asked the 
 dying man if he believed in Jesus. The answer, as plainly 
 as any one could articulate it, was ' Yes.' The three phy- 
 sicians regarded this answer as remarkable, as all agreed 
 that the particular part of the brain affected by the paraly- 
 sis was that governing speech, and that the ex-Governor 
 would probably never have talked had he lived. It was the 
 only word he spoke after he was stricken. He immediately 
 lapsed into a profound coma, from which he did not re- 
 cover before he passed away at 6.30 o'clock." 
 
 Immediately upon the publication of this report, I 
 addressed a letter of inquiry to one of the physicians 
 in attendance upon the distinguished patient, Dr. 
 Olin ; but as he did not happen to be present at the 
 time the event occurred, he turned the letter over 
 to Dr. F. D. Allhands, who very kindly replied as 
 follows : 
 
 Office of F. D. ALLHANDS, Physician and Surgeon, 
 WINGATE, IND., Sept. 14, 1898. 
 
 DEAR MR. HUDSON, Your letter was handed to me by 
 Dr. Olin. He was not present at the time of the death of 
 Mr. Matthews. Dr. R. French Stone, of Indianapolis, and 
 I were present. He [Governor Matthews] did speak the 
 word " Yes " very distinctly, so as all in the room could 
 hear and understand him. The part of the brain that 
 governs speech was undoubtedly affected ; that was the 
 opinion of all the physicians. I see no objection to your 
 using my name. Yours truly, 
 
 F. D. ALLHANDS.
 
 104 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 
 
 The evidential value of this case can hardly be 
 overestimated if the diagnosis of the physicians was 
 correct; and it is difficult to imagine how they could 
 be mistaken. The hypothesis we have been con- 
 sidering, however, affords an easy explanation of 
 the phenomenon. The cortical area controlling the 
 organs of speech was paralyzed ; and in all human 
 probability the whole brain had ceased its functions 
 at the time when the event happened. The subjec- 
 tive mind was, therefore, active and in control. The 
 brain action being inhibited, the subjective mind 
 was amenable to control by suggestion, unhampered 
 by any possible adverse auto-suggestion. Every- 
 thing, in fact, conspired to bring about the result. 
 The supreme moment in the life of the dying man 
 had arrived. The overwhelming desire of the stricken 
 wife to know if he had faith in Jesus had been ex- 
 pressed. The religious training of his youth had 
 taught him that a confession of trust in Christ was 
 essential to salvation. The clergyman's question, 
 uttered in a tone of solemn earnestness, and ad- 
 dressed directly to the patient, constituted the strong- 
 est conceivable suggestion that an answer was not 
 only possible, but was expected. In pursuance of 
 that suggestion the subjective mind of the dying man 
 answered the question. 
 
 In doing so, it simply exercised that control over 
 the functions of the body which, as we have already 
 seen, it normally exercises in all cases of emergency, 
 especially when the action of the brain is, from any 
 cause, inhibited. 
 
 The most prolific source of evidence of the correct- 
 ness of the hypothesis, however, is found in the
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 105 
 
 phenomena of experimental hypnotism, especially 
 that of amnesia subsequent to the induction of a 
 state of profound hypnosis. Every student of the 
 phenomena of cerebral activity is aware that all our 
 normal mental experiences are registered in the 
 brain. That is to say, every thought or experience 
 of normal consciousness produces a corresponding 
 modification of brain cells. New cells are created 
 and old cells are modified, and these constitute the 
 physical receptacles of memories of brain thought 
 and experience. Every hypnotist knows that a 
 profoundly hypnotized subject does not remember 
 what takes place during the time of deep hypnosis, 
 no matter how exciting and impressive may be the 
 scenes in which he has been made to figure in pur- 
 suance of the suggestions of the hypnotist. The 
 obvious explanation is that the action of the brain 
 is inhibited during deep hypnosis ; and hence there 
 is, and can be, no change in the brain cells to corre- 
 spond to the thoughts and experiences of the sub- 
 jective mind. 
 
 The phenomena of spontaneous somnambulism are 
 exactly parallel, and the explanation is the same. 
 On the other hand, in a state of partial hypnosis the 
 subject will often remember the details of his sub- 
 jective thoughts and hallucinations ; and the memory 
 will be vivid in exact inverse proportion to the depth 
 of the hypnosis. The phenomena of dreams during 
 natural sleep are precisely the same. We remember 
 those dreams only which come to us when we are 
 just between sleeping and waking before the brain 
 ceases to act, as we are going to sleep, or after it is 
 partially roused to activity as we are awakening. All
 
 106 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 psychologists agree that we are constantly dreaming 
 as we sleep ; but the dreams of profound sleep are 
 not registered in the brain, for the simple reason that 
 the action of the brain is then totally inhibited ; and, 
 as in all other cases where the objective mind is in 
 abeyance, the subjective mind is correspondingly 
 active. 
 
 The foregoing are a few of the many facts and 
 observable phenomena which demonstrate duality of 
 mind, and prove beyond a doubt that the brain is 
 not the organ of the subjective mind. I have felt 
 compelled to dwell upon the subject at some length, 
 because the propositions which the facts substantiate 
 are the basic truths of psychic science. In the next 
 chapter I propose to make a brief statement of what 
 I conceive to be the office and function of the brain 
 as a factor in the grand scheme of evolutionary de- 
 velopment of the human soul.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 
 
 Table showing when Brain was evolved. Rapidity of Subsequent 
 Evolutionary Progress. Geometrical Rate of Increase. The 
 Neptunian Strata. The Inconceivable Length of Time em- 
 braced in Organic History. Psychological Lessons taught by 
 the Table. More than One Half the Time elapsed before a 
 Brain appeared on this Earth. Progress Slow up to that Time. 
 Development more Rapid in the Next Epoch, but still Slow. 
 One Third of the Time consumed in the Age of Fishes. The 
 Following Epoch made still more Rapid Progress, yet about One 
 Ninth of the Time was consumed in the Reptilian Age. The 
 Age of Mammals occupied but about One Fiftieth of the Whole 
 Time. The Age of Man but One Two-Hundredth Part. The 
 Historic Period occupied but an infinitesimally Small Part of 
 One Per Cent of the Whole Time. The Significance of these 
 Facts. The Real Function of the Brain in Organic Life. 
 When did Animals begin to Reason ? The Brain as a Factor in 
 Evolutionary Development. Its Inductive Powers. Its Ability 
 to cope with an Environment of Error incident to Organic Life 
 in the Formative Stage. The Significance of the Intuitive Fac- 
 ulty. Another Plane of Existence its Apparent Realm of Activ- 
 ity. Some Fundamental Axioms. Secondary Instincts. The 
 Power of Induction in Animals. Increased Rate of Progressive 
 Development due to that Faculty. 
 
 ON the following page will be found a table l the 
 data for which I have taken from Haeckel's 
 " Evolution of Man." The first column comprises 
 an estimate of the Neptunian fossiliferous strata of 
 the earth, with reference to their relative sectional 
 
 1 This table contains the substance of three tables to be found 
 in Haeckel's "Evolution of Man," vol. ii. pp. n, 18, 19. I have 
 grouped them into one for convenience of reference and examination.
 
 108 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 thickness (130,000 feet being the approximate thick- 
 ness of the whole). 
 
 TABLE II. 
 
 Fossiliferous 
 Strata. 
 
 Palceontological Periods. 
 
 Per Cent of 
 Time. 
 
 30,000 ft. 
 18,000 ft. 
 22,000 ft. 
 
 42,000 ft. 
 
 1 5,000 ft. 
 
 3,000 ft. 
 
 Total 1 30,000 ft. 
 
 I. Archilithic or Primordial Epoch 
 (Age of Skull-less Animals). 
 
 1. Laurentian Period. ) 
 
 2. Cambrian Period. 
 
 3. Silurian Period. ) 
 
 II. Palaeolithic or Primary Epoch 
 
 (Age of Fishes). 
 
 ( I. Devonian Period. i 
 
 ] 2. Coal Period. 
 ( 3. Permian Period. ) 
 
 III. Mesolithic or Secondary Epoch 
 (Age of Reptiles). 
 
 !i. Triassic Period. ) 
 
 2. Jurassic Period. 
 3. Chalk Period. ) 
 
 IV. Caenolithic or Tertiary Epoch 
 (Age of Mammals). 
 
 ( i. Eocene Period. ) 
 
 ? 2. Miocene Period. 
 
 ( 3. Pliocene Period. ) 
 
 V. Anthropolithic or Quaternary 
 Epoch (Age of Man). 
 
 1. Ice Age, Glacial Period. ) 
 
 2. Post-Glacial Period. 
 
 3. Period of Culture. ) 
 
 53-6 
 
 32.x 
 
 2-3 
 
 o-S 
 
 Total joo.o 
 
 (The Period of Culture is the Historic Period, or Period of 
 Tradition.) 
 
 The second column embraces a systematic survey 
 of the palaeontological periods, or greater divisions 
 in the history of the organic earth.
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 1 09 
 
 The third column is a statement of the percentages 
 assigned to the relative durations of the five main 
 divisions or epochs, as shown in the other two 
 columns. 
 
 Thus the reader has before him, in one view, the 
 salient facts in the history of organic evolution, and 
 the geological data from which the time estimates 
 have been made. That they are both substantially 
 correct is not seriously disputed by competent 
 authority, although no pretence can be made of 
 absolute correctness. It is entirely probable that 
 the grand divisions outlined may lap over each 
 other to a limited extent; but it is impossible that 
 they should do so to such a degree as to invalidate 
 any conclusions that have been, or are likely to be, 
 drawn from them. Thus, it may be that the line 
 between the primordial and the primary epochs does 
 not sharply define the boundary between the in- 
 vertebrate ancestors of man and those of his more 
 pretentious relatives who can boast of the regulation 
 backbone. Nor is it quite certain whether man did 
 not make his first appearance sometime during the 
 caenolithic epoch. But a few thousand years more 
 or less on either side of the line dividing any two 
 epochs does not count for much when we consider 
 the aeons that must have elapsed since the first 
 appearance of organic life upon this planet. The 
 relative duration of the epochs is sufficiently apparent 
 in the thickness of the various Neptunian strata to 
 justify the few conclusions that pertain to the sub- 
 ject under consideration. 
 
 There are two primary lessons taught by facts 
 stated in the table that are as obvious as they are
 
 1 10 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 important. The first is that a brain is not necessary 
 either to the sustentation of life or the manifestation 
 of intelligence. Indeed it may be said that more 
 than one half of all the millions of years that have 
 elapsed since organic life appeared upon the earth 
 have been consumed in demonstrating that fact. 
 
 The second lesson is that a brain is necessary 
 to the rapid development of life and intelligence. 
 
 The table of time percentages shows that progress 
 is exactly proportioned to brain development. Thus, 
 the primordial epoch, or age of brainless animals, 
 occupied more than one half of the whole time. 
 That is to say, in the absence of a brain it required 
 53.6 per cent of the time that has elapsed since the 
 appearance of the monera to develop the animal 
 kingdom up to the lowest of the vertebrata. 
 
 The next epoch was the age of fishes ; and they 
 being endowed with brains, the rate of development 
 was correspondingly increased. But a little over 
 thirty-two per cent of the time was consumed in 
 developing from them the amphibia and the reptiles. 
 It was a long-drawn-out epoch compared with those 
 that followed, but it was a decided improvement 
 over the one that preceded it. The brains of fishes 
 are not very highly developed or specialized, but 
 the table of percentages shows that they were a 
 decided improvement upon no brains at all. The 
 best evidence of that is that they were capable of 
 development, and this is shown by the fact that the 
 more highly endowed fishes sought fresh fields and 
 pastures new by making occasional incursions upon 
 dry land. From these were developed the amphibia 
 and the whole reptilian race.
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. Ill 
 
 The age of reptiles, as shown by the table, con- 
 sumed but a little over eleven per cent of the time 
 in developing the mammalia. 
 
 The mammalian age, in turn, decreased the per- 
 centage in a still greater proportion, consuming but 
 a little over two per cent of the whole time in 
 developing up to man. 
 
 Lastly, the age of man embraces but one-half 
 per cent of the whole time since organic life ap- 
 peared upon the earth; and this includes the glacial 
 period and the post-glacial period. 
 
 It is obvious that if we should segregate the period 
 of culture, or historic period, from that of prehistoric 
 man, we should find that the percentage of duration 
 of the historic period was but an infinitesimal part 
 of one per cent of the whole. 
 
 We are now, in some measure, prepared to appre- 
 ciate the part which the brain has played in the 
 development of organic and intellectual life on this 
 planet ; for we have seen that, since it became a 
 part of the equipment of organic life, it has accel- 
 erated the progress of evolutionary development in a 
 geometrical ratio. It has, moreover, changed the 
 original significance of the law of " survival of the 
 fittest." Thus, before a brain was evolved, fitness 
 to survive was wholly a matter of physical strength 
 or development. After the development of the 
 brain, sagacity became the most potential factor in 
 the problem of survival ; and from the time when the 
 most highly developed fishes began to seek safety in 
 a new environment, by crawling out of their native 
 element and taking refuge upon the dry land 
 (amphibia), until man appeared upon the earth,
 
 112 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 sagacity has been a factor of constantly increasing 
 potency in the survival of the fittest. Man is so 
 far advanced in the scale of being that he is com- 
 paratively independent of environment, or rather he 
 is able to create his own environment ; and physical 
 strength is the least in importance of the factors in 
 the problem of survival. 
 
 These, however, are trite sayings and are matters 
 of common observation. What concerns us most, for 
 the purposes of this argument, is the process by 
 which this development was brought about, and the 
 conclusions derivable from a study of that process. 
 
 In pursuing this study I hope to find a solution of 
 several problems that have perplexed the scientific 
 mind, among which are the following: 
 
 First, what is the real office and function of the 
 brain in organic life? 
 
 Secondly, when do animals begin to exercise the 
 powers of reason? 
 
 Thirdly, what is the potential factor in the devel- 
 opment of secondary instincts? 
 
 In discussing these questions I shall first postulate 
 certain things regarding the functions of the brain, 
 leaving some of their verifying facts to be developed 
 in the discussion of the remaining questions, and re- 
 ferring the reader back to some of the preceding 
 chapters for other proofs of my postulates. 
 
 I assume, then, that the brain is simply a physi- 
 cal organ, possessing but one distinctive power or 
 function, namely, the faculty of inductive reasoning. 
 It was evolved in response to the necessities of a 
 physical environment; and the specific office of the 
 intellectual faculty, or mind, of which it is the organ,
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 113 
 
 is that of a guide to its possessor through the manifold 
 mazes of that environment. This intelligence, which 
 has been denominated the objective mind, apparently 
 does not constitute an integral part of the primary 
 intelligence, or subjective mind, although it often 
 acts in perfect synchronism with it. 
 
 As I have already pointed out, the subjective 
 mind, under and by virtue of the law of suggestion, 
 is incapable of independently carrying on the process 
 of induction. It has, however, the faculty of deduc- 
 tion in potential perfection. It must, therefore, take 
 its premises from an extraneous source. The reason 
 for this apparent limitation of mental power will 
 more fully appear as we proceed. In the mean time 
 it must suffice to say that the subjective mind does* 
 not appear to have originated on this earthly plane, \ 
 nor does it appear that this plane of existence is its \ 
 final goal. Its first manifestation on the earthly^ 
 plane revealed a far higher power than that of induc- 
 tion, and the world has named it "instinct." Its 
 higher manifestations are called " intuition." As I 
 have already pointed out, they are identical, differing 
 only in degree. It is the power of immediate per- 
 ception of laws or general principles, and it is ante- 
 cedent to, and independent of, reason or experience 
 or instruction. Induction is but another method of 
 ascertaining general laws or principles. This it 
 accomplishes by the slow and laborious process of 
 gathering facts of observation or experience. It 
 possesses the faculty of discrimination between what 
 is real and what is apparent, and of estimating the 
 value and pertinency of all the facts of its environ- 
 ment. Hence its adaptation to an imperfect envi- 
 
 8
 
 114 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 ronment, such as sentient creatures are compelled to 
 confront in this world, an environment that is 
 filled with snares and pitfalls, physical and moral, 
 enemies to life and foes to progress ; an environment 
 of error, falsehood, and uncertainty; in short, a world 
 that is in a formative state, just emerging from prim- 
 itive conditions, physical, mental, and moral. Obvi- 
 ously the one mental faculty adapted to cope with 
 the exigencies of such an environment is that of 
 
 o 
 
 inductive reason, the faculty of discrimination, the 
 faculty that enables its possessor to arrive at funda- 
 mental truth by a process of systematic analysis of 
 facts and appearances, of proving all things, and 
 holding fast only to that which is good. 
 
 The subjective mind does not possess that faculty 
 for the reasons that, as I have before remarked, 
 (i) it apparently had its origin in another and a 
 higher plane of existence; and (2) it is apparently 
 destined, ultimately, to return to its native realm 
 I shall assume, provisionally, this to be the correct 
 hypothesis, reserving the proofs for their proper 
 places in subsequent chapters of this book. In the 
 mean time it must also be assumed, subject to subse- 
 quent verification, that the environment of the ulti- 
 mate home of the human soul is perfect. That is 
 to say, it is a realm of truth, a realm where no false- 
 hood or false appearances beset the minds of its 
 inhabitants. It is obvious, therefore, that the faculty 
 of induction would be superfluous in a realm where 
 nothing but truth is in evidence. Nevertheless a 
 faculty adapted to such conditions is required ; and 
 that faculty we find existent in the subjective mind 
 of man, namely, that of intuition, the faculty of
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 115 
 
 immediate apprehension of fundamental truth, ante- 
 cedent to, and independent of, reason, experience, 
 or instruction. 
 
 Now, it is axiomatic that nature never creates an 
 unnecessary or a superfluous mental faculty . It follows 
 that the faculty of intuition, since it is limited and 
 circumscribed in this world by the law of suggestion, 
 must reach the full fruition of its powers in some 
 higher plane of existence. 1 
 
 It is also axiomatic that nature never fails to create 
 or evolve such mental faculties as are necessary to 
 adapt sentient creatures to their environment. 
 
 The history of organic and mental evolution amply 
 verifies this proposition. Thus, the primary intelli- 
 gence amply sufficed for the first stages of develop- 
 ment, that is, during practically the whole of the 
 primordial epoch. This, as we have seen, was the 
 age of skull-less animals and seaweed forests. During 
 the whole of this epoch the inhabitants of our planet 
 consisted exclusively of aquatic forms. " At least," 
 says Haeckel, " no remains of terrestrial animals or 
 plants dating from this period have as yet been 
 found. A few remains of land-dwelling organisms 
 which are sometimes referred to the Silurian period, 
 are Devonian." Vegetable life capable of sustaining 
 animal existence had not yet appeared upon the dry 
 land. There was necessarily but little variation in 
 the aquatic environment; and there was nothing, 
 therefore, to facilitate or incite a rapid development 
 of either organic or mental life. As a consequence, 
 
 i For a full discussion of this particular branch of the subject, see 
 " A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life." It is incidentally 
 mentioned here to complete the present argument
 
 Il6 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the primary instincts being alone developed, the 
 process was slow. Nevertheless, there was progress 
 made, and at the close of the primordial epoch the 
 lowest of the vertebrate ancestors of man appeared 
 and a brain began to be evolved. 
 
 // was then that animals began to reason. It was 
 then that the faculty of induction became a potential. 
 It was a long time before it was so far developed as 
 to leave a record of its existence ; but the time came 
 at last, and the first phenomenal manifestation of 
 that power that left an impress visible to science 
 was when the most highly endowed fishes began to 
 seek release from their native environment by making 
 incursions upon dry land, and thus gave rise to the 
 amphibian class. It was then that secondary instincts 
 began to be developed. That is to say, it was then 
 that " intelligent acts " began to be performed which 
 eventually were "converted into instincts" (Darwin). 
 
 Before entering upon the discussion of that branch 
 of the subject, however, let us briefly examine the 
 essential character of the process of induction as it 
 was and is manifested in the lower animals. 
 
 Inductive reasoning, as every one knows, when 
 considered as a distinctive faculty or power of the 
 human mind, consists in collecting, classifying, and 
 analyzing the facts of observation and experience, 
 for the purpose of ascertaining the general law or 
 principle underlying the series of facts under con- 
 sideration. It is the faculty of discrimination. It is 
 the power of adaptation to environment; and this is 
 true whether it is manifested in man or in the lower 
 animals. And it may be set down as axiomatic 
 that, other things being equal, the power of adapta-
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. II 7 
 
 tion to environment is exactly proportioned to the 
 development of the faculty of induction. An animal 
 without a brain will perish in a changed environment 
 Man alone possesses the capacity to adapt himself to 
 the extremes of environmental conditions; for he 
 alone has the power to modify existent conditions or 
 to create new ones for himself. Between these two 
 extremes there exist a thousand grades of adaptive 
 capacity, but, as before remarked, the grade is 
 determined by the development of the faculty of 
 induction. 
 
 The simplest way to explain what I mean by 
 induction in the lower animals is to contrast the 
 functions of the objective and subjective minds as 
 they are manifested in all grades of mental capacity. 
 
 I have already shown that the subjective mind of 
 man is constantly amenable to control by suggestion. 
 Hypnotists describe the effect upon a hypnotized 
 subject as " monideaism." That is to say, the sub- 
 ject is dominated by one idea to the exclusion of all 
 other ideas that are antagonistic to the one embraced 
 in the suggestion that has been made to him. That 
 idea is accepted by his subjective mind as the fun- 
 damental law pertaining to the subject-matter of the 
 suggestion ; and he proceeds to reason deductively 
 from that supposed fundamental to all the conclu- 
 sions legitimately derivable therefrom. All other 
 facts, especially those which antagonize the domi- 
 nant idea or suggestion, are ignored. This is true 
 whether the suggestion is true or false. It is obvious 
 that, if the suggestion is false, the deductions will 
 lead to the grossest error; although they may be 
 perfectly logical in themselves. It is also obvious
 
 Il8 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 that, when the suggestion is true, the prodigious 
 power of correct deduction, which is characteristic 
 of the subjective mind, enables it to grasp and assim- 
 ilate all that there is of truth deducible from the sug- 
 gestion. Hence it is that, in an environment of 
 truth, the subjective mind is never led astray; for 
 its power of intuitive perception of the laws of its 
 being and environment always insures truthful sug- 
 gestions ; and its power of potentially inerrant deduc- 
 tion insures correct conclusions. 
 
 But the physical world does not afford such an 
 environment; and false suggestions in every con- 
 ceivable form continually beset every sentient crea- 
 ture. Hence the necessity of investing the animal 
 kingdom with a faculty adapted to such an envi- 
 ronment. Hence the evolution of the brain, with its 
 capacity for induction, its faculty or power of dis- 
 crimination, its ability to consider more than one fact 
 or appearance at a time and to estimate their re- 
 spective weights and values. And this is inductive 
 reasoning, whether it is manifested in the scientist, 
 who collects a vast congeries of facts and classifies 
 and weighs them with the intelligence born of culture 
 and experience, or in the animal which is only ca- 
 pable of comprehending two facts at a time and weigh- 
 ing their respective values. 
 
 This, then, is the primary distinctive difference be- 
 tween the two minds. The subjective mind considers 
 but one fact or suggestion at a time. It accepts that 
 fact, or that apparent fact, or suggestion of fact, as 
 true, and it acts accordingly. This is what is known 
 to science as the " law of suggestion." On the 
 other hand, the objective mind is capable of con-
 
 EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 1 19 
 
 sidering two or more facts, or suggestions of fact, 
 and of exercising a discriminating judgment between 
 them. It is the difference between instinct or intui- 
 tion and induction. In an environment of truth the 
 first is inerrant. In an environment of uncertainty 
 the second becomes necessary. The history of or-^ 
 ganic evolution shows that whateverwas found to be \ 
 necessary to the conservation of animal life was event- 
 ually evolved in response to that necessity. Accord- / 
 ingly, when a supplemental faculty of mind became a 
 necessity, a new physical organ was evolved, the , 
 function of which supplied the deficiency and gave % 
 to animal life a fresh impulse in the direction of pro- \ 
 gressive development. The conclusion seems obvi- 
 ous and irresistible that it was when the brain was , 
 evolved that animals began to reason, that is, to 
 reason by the process of induction ; and that it was i 
 due to the development of that faculty, and in exact 
 proportion to that development, that the constantly) 
 accelerated ratio of evolutionary progress was due. //
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 
 
 Objective Mind educates the Subjective Mind. Hence the Instinct 
 of Animals is exactly proportioned to their Intelligence. 
 Authorities cited. Progressive Mental Evolution brought about 
 by Development of Secondary Instincts. Romanes on Primary 
 and Secondary Instincts. The Latter brought about by " Natural 
 Selection." The Absurdity of that Theory illustrated. The Gen- 
 eral Theory of Natural Selection accepted with Reservations, 
 but it is overloaded to an Absurd Degree. Lamarck's Theory 
 of " Appetency " also accepted with Qualifications. The Two 
 Theoiies Complementary. Further Illustration of the Absurdity 
 of ascribing Primary Instincts to Natural Selection. A Logical 
 Axiom, " Never needlessly multiply Causes." Primary and 
 Secondary Instincts defined. They accord with the History of 
 Organic Evolution. Nevf Environmental Conditions reveal 
 New Dangers. These are at first intelligently overcome. 
 Habit converts the Acts into Instincts which are then inherited. 
 Natural Selection not an Original Cause of New Species. 
 Strictly speaking, it is not a Law of Nature. " Survival of the 
 Fittest " an Incident, not a Law. It is an Effect of other 
 Causes. Natural Selection not the Origin of Species. Natural 
 Selection is the Theory of Chance. It is Atheistic in its Last 
 Analysis. Lamarck's Theory. It is a Necessary Factor in any 
 Complete Theory of Evolution. Structural Changes due to 
 New Instinctive Impulses. The Latter due to Brain Develop- 
 ment. Brain Development due to constantly Increasing Com- 
 plexities of Environment. This is True of Man as of the Lower 
 Animals. Each Individual Intelligence is the Sum of all Ances- 
 tral Instincts plus its Objective Intelligence. 
 
 IT will not be disputed that the evidence thus far 
 adduced points clearly to the conclusion that the 
 objective mind the mind of which the brain is the 
 organ is a potent agency in the progressive de-
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 121 
 
 velopment of animal intelligence. It remains to ex- 
 amine the process by which this development has 
 been brought about. 
 
 It has already been shown that the objective mind 
 is the educator of the subjective mind. It is fitted 
 for that office by virtue of the fact that its power of 
 inductive reasoning qualifies it to act intelligently in 
 an imperfect environment , for it possesses the fac- 
 ulty of judicial discrimination. In saying this I must 
 not be understood as affirming that the objective 
 mind performs its function of induction to the ex- 
 clusion of instinct. I am not of those who believe, 
 with Cuvier, that instinct and intelligence stand in an 
 inverse ratio with each other. Darwin, and other 
 modern biologists, agree, with Pouchet, that no such 
 inverse ratio exists. On the contrary, as the latter 
 points out, " those insects which possess the most 
 wonderful instincts are certainly the most intelli- 
 gent." 1 Again, Darwin 2 shows that " in the verte- 
 brate series the least intelligent members, namely, 
 fishes and amphibians, do not possess complex in- 
 stincts; and amongst mammals the animal most re- 
 markable for its instincts, namely, the beaver, is highly 
 intelligent." 3 In fact, I do not know of a modern 
 biologist who does not now admit that animals pos- 
 sessing the most complex instincts invariably possess 
 a correspondingly high order of objective intelligence. 
 I make these references for the reason that, as far as 
 they go, they bear me out in what I shall proceed to 
 
 1 Revue des Deux Mondes, February, 1870, p. 690. 
 
 2 Descent of Man, p. 67. 
 
 8 See also "The American Beaver and his Works," by Morgan, 
 1868.
 
 122 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 show; and that is that complex instincts and intelli- 
 | gence are exactly proportioned to each other in all 
 the broad realm of sentient life, beginning with the 
 | animal in which a brain was first developed and end- 
 ing with the most highly endowed human being. 
 j This is true for the simple reason that high intelli- 
 gence and complex instincts sustain a causal relation 
 to each other. '/That is to say, in any given class or 
 species, the more highly developed the objective 
 mind becomes, the more complex become the in- 
 stincts; for the former is the cause of the latter. 
 And this is brought about solely by the development 
 of secondary instincts." 
 
 In order to make myself clearly understood in this 
 connection, I must, revert to what has already been 
 said in relation to the distinction between primary 
 and secondary instincts as laid down by Romanes and 
 others. Not that I agree with Romanes as to the ori- 
 gin of primary instincts, for his doctrine relegates the 
 whole question to the realm of chance ; * but his gen- 
 eral statement of the origin of secondary instincts is 
 obviously correct as far as it goes. He explains 
 ^ their origin as follows: " By the effects of habit in 
 I successive generations, actions which were originally 
 intelligent become, as it were, stereotyped into per- 
 manent instincts." 2 a~~> l*rV4^~^~~~^-*-*' ? 
 
 This is what Lewes 3 calls the "lapsing of intelli- 
 gence," a term that is liable to mislead in the 
 absence of explanation. The meaning is this : After 
 an intelligent action has been performed for a certain 
 length of time it is converted into an instinct, and as 
 
 1 See " Mental Evolution in Animals," p. 177. 2 Ibid 
 
 8 Problems of Life and Mind.
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 12$ 
 
 such it is transmitted by inheritance, and succeeding 
 generations perform the action automatically, that 
 is, " without intelligence." The " intelligence " has 
 " lapsed." 
 
 As before remarked, I accept Romanes' general 
 statement of the origin of secondary instincts, or 
 rather his definition of such instincts, because it is 
 obviously correct. He does not, however, make the 
 distinction quite clear between primary and secondary 
 instincts, as he defines the former; nor does he give 
 us any clue whatever leading to a knowledge of the 
 time when or the means by which secondary instincts 
 began to be developed. His want of clearness of 
 distinction between the two classes is well illustrated 
 in his selection of an illustration of the origin of 
 primary instincts. 
 
 In order that I may be sure to do no injustice to 
 the learned author, I will quote the entire passage 
 relating to the origin and development of primary 
 instincts : 
 
 " The first mode of origin consists in natural selection, 
 or survival of the fittest, continuously preserving actions 
 which, although never intelligent, yet happen to have been 
 of benefit to the animals which first chanced to perform 
 them. Thus, for instance, take the instinct of incubation. 
 It is quite impossible that any animal can ever have kept 
 its eggs warm with the intelligent purpose of hatching out 
 their contents ; so we can only suppose that the incubating 
 instinct began by warm-blooded animals showing that kind 
 of attention to their eggs which we find to be frequently 
 shown by cold-blooded animals. Thus, crabs and spiders 
 carry about their eggs for the purpose of protecting them ; 
 and if, as animals gradually became warm-blooded, some
 
 124 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 species, for this or for any other purpose, adopted a 
 similar habit, the imparting of heat would have become 
 incidental to the carrying about of the eggs. Consequently, 
 as the imparting of heat promoted the process of hatching, 
 those individuals which most constantly cuddled or brooded 
 over their eggs would, other things equal, have been the 
 most successful in rearing progeny ; and so the incubating 
 instinct would be developed without there ever having been 
 any intelligence in the matter." 1 (The italics are mine.) 
 
 It is difficult to see how the learned author is 
 enabled to arrive at the conclusion that there never 
 could have been " any intelligence in the matter," in 
 view of the fact that the steps involved in the educa- 
 tion of the animal, as he describes that process, pre- 
 suppose a long series of intelligent observations as 
 to the best conditions of successful incubation, fol- 
 lowed by the intelligent adoption of the plan that 
 had proved to be productive of the best results, and 
 the subsequent stereotyping of that process into per- 
 manent instincts. It is obvious that the series of 
 observations and experiments required by this variety 
 of the theory of natural selection would have 
 involved the exercise of far higher inductive powers 
 than were employed in formulating the theory. The 
 intense absurdity of the latter can be fully appreci- 
 ated only when we reflect that the eggs of warm- 
 blooded animals require a definite time for incubation, 
 during which time they must be kept at a given tem- 
 perature continuously. Any great or long-continued 
 lapse from continuity in the temperature is necessa- 
 rily fatal to the life within the egg. This law was in 
 existence at the time when the supposed series of 
 
 1 Op. cit. p. 177.
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 12$ 
 
 observations was being conducted. Every egg that 
 was hatched during that time was, therefore, sub- 
 jected to the necessary conditions of continuous heat. 
 In the mean time the experimenters in various de- 
 grees of "coddling and brooding" must have died 
 without issue. And it is obvious that if they had 
 all been experimenters the class would have become 
 extinct with the first generation. The fact that they 
 did not become extinct is demonstrative that some 
 of the eggs were subjected to the necessary continu- 
 ous temperature at the very beginning, and that the 
 process has been kept up ever since. 
 
 The only other supposition that could possibly 
 account for the origin of the instinct of incubation 
 on the theory of natural selection, is that the first 
 warm-blooded animal that hatched a brood must have 
 "accidentally" sat on her eggs continuously during 
 the necessary period of incubation, say three weeks. 
 The word " accidentally " is advisedly used, for the 
 Darwinian theory of natural selection is the theory of 
 accident, the hypothesis of chance; and this is the 
 theory which Romanes, in the passage above quoted, 
 avowedly adopts as his explanation of the origin of 
 primary instincts. His words are these: 
 
 " The first mode of origin consists in natural selection, 
 or survival of the fittest, continuously preserving actions 
 which, though never intelligent, yet happen to have been 
 of benefit to the animals which first chanced to perform 
 them." 
 
 It is superfluous to remark that the supposition 
 that the process of incubation began by an " acci- 
 dental " sitting by the parent animal of, say, three
 
 126 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 weeks' duration, is in a very high degree improbable, 
 to employ no harsher expression in its characteriza- 
 tion. But the very last degree of improbability is 
 reached when we stop to consider all that is involved 
 in the theory of accidental incubation. Thus, the 
 continuity of the requisite temperature is presup- 
 posed, as any serious lapse would be fatal to the 
 embryo. This, in turn, involves a continuous sitting, 
 which would be fatal to the parent, and must there- 
 fore be dismissed as impossible. The only alter- 
 nate supposition is that the parent leaves the nest at 
 least once a day to procure the necessary food to 
 sustain life. But this, in turn, involves the " acci- 
 dental" return to the nest, each day, in time to 
 prevent the eggs from getting cold. Again, if pre- 
 historic eggs required the same attention and ma- 
 nipulation that modern fowls find it profitable to 
 bestow upon those of current history, we must sup- 
 pose that they required daily turning over in the 
 nest. This, of course, involves the supposition that 
 each of the first collection of prehistoric eggs was 
 "accidentally" turned each day for the required 
 period of incubation. 
 
 Nor is this all ; for this congeries of " accidents " 
 must, of necessity, have been repeated by the next 
 generation, and the next, and so on for an indefi- 
 nite period, before the acts became " stereotyped 
 into permanent instincts." This, however, is inferen- 
 tial, since our learned author has not vouchsafed the 
 information as to how many repetitions of a favoring 
 accident are required to convert it into a permanent 
 instinct. But he does tell us, what Darwin had 
 previously laid down as a general principle, that
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 12J 
 
 " intelligent actions, after being performed during 
 several generations, become converted into instincts 
 and are inherited, as when birds on oceanic islands 
 learn to avoid man." l If therefore it requires 
 several generations to convert an intelligent action 
 into an inheritable secondary instinct, we have a 
 right to infer that it will require at least an equal 
 number of generations to convert an " accident " into 
 a permanent primary instinct; a fortiori, when it was 
 developed, as Romanes assures us the instinct of 
 incubation was developed, " without there ever 
 having been any intelligence in the matter." 
 
 But as it is reasonably certain that no such 
 series of " accidents," with an indefinite number of 
 exact repetitions, ever did or ever could occur, we 
 are driven to the conclusion that the learned author 
 must hold that the accidental experience of one 
 individual will be sufficient to "stereotype" the in- 
 stinct and render it permanent; and this, too, in the 
 absence of " any intelligence whatever." But as that 
 is manifestly impossible in the absence of a very 
 high order of intelligence, it must be dismissed as 
 untenable in fact, as well as inconsistent with the 
 learned author's own premises. In point of fact, any 
 view that can be taken of the question from the 
 standpoint of the theory of natural selection in- 
 volves the predication of such a long series of 
 " accidents " that the mere enumeration of them is 
 a reductio ad absurdum. 
 
 In the mean time I must not be understood as 
 rejecting the general Darwinian doctrine of natural 
 selection. Much less do I reject the Lamarckian 
 1 Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 67.
 
 128 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 doctrine of " appetency." Least of all do I sym- 
 pathize with that spirit of partisanship that accepts 
 either theory to the exclusion of the other. They 
 
 are both required and much more besides in 
 
 any system of inductive philosophy that is capable 
 of accounting for all the facts of organic and mental 
 evolution. 
 
 What I object to is the attempt of materialism to 
 overload any one theory with burdens that do not 
 belong to it. It is in this spirit that I have ventured 
 to draw attention to one or two of the many reasons 
 for rejecting the doctrine that primary instincts have 
 their origin in natural selection. The illustrations of 
 the absurdity of that hypothesis might be multiplied 
 indefinitely were it worth while to do so. I have 
 used the instinct of incubation as an illustration 
 simply because Romanes, by using it, tacitly admitted 
 that it was best suited to his purpose. I will content 
 myself with one more illustration. 
 
 The instinct of reproduction is certainly a primary 
 instinct. It was fully developed in the first uni- 
 cellular organism, else there never could have been 
 a second unicellular organism ; and the process of 
 evolution of animal life would have ceased at the 
 very threshold of sentient existence. The process of 
 reproduction by unicellular organisms is by fission 
 or segmentation. That is, the cell separates into 
 two equal parts, each of which is a complete cell, 
 endowed with all the attributes of the original cell. 
 Now, in order to account for the origin of the pri- 
 mary instinct of reproduction on the theory of natural 
 selection, we must suppose that an " accident " hap- 
 pened to the original cell resulting in splitting it in.
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION, 1 29 
 
 two in the middle. Then we must suppose that each 
 half gathered itself together, took account of stock, 
 and discovered ," accidentally," of course that 
 there was enough left to constitute a quorum, so to 
 speak, and to complete an independent organism. 
 The subsequent steps by which this accident was 
 converted into a permanent instinct I leave to be 
 decided by those who believe that the theory of 
 natural selection, or the hypothesis of chance, is a 
 sufficient explanation of all the phenomena incident 
 to the progressive development of the organic world. 
 
 It is, however, useless to waste time in showing 
 the absurdity of supposing that the instincts of pri- 
 mordial unicellular organisms owed their origin to 
 natural selection ; for I do not know that any biolo- 
 gist of prominence now seriously entertains that 
 theory. The point I wish to make is that since some 
 primary instincts of the most important character are 
 inherent in the mental organism of animals, there is 
 no valid reason for supposing that other primary 
 instincts owe their origin to natural selection. 
 
 One of the primary rules of scientific investiga- 
 tion is that we should never needlessly multiply causes. 
 That is to say, where an adequate cause of any 
 class of phenomena is known to exist we have 
 neither occasion nor logical right to seek other 
 causes for the same or cognate phenomena. Now, we 
 know that many of the primary instincts are inherent 
 in the mental organism of animals. It is unneces- 
 sary, therefore, to invoke any other theory to account 
 for any primary instinct, at least until it is first 
 shown that the known cause is inadequate to explain 
 all the phenomena. Until, therefore, the contrary 
 
 9
 
 130 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 is demonstrated, we may safely assume that the 
 instinct of incubation in warm-blooded animals 
 arises from the same irresistible impulse that impels 
 the lower animals to the acts of reproduction or 
 nutrition, or any of the other acts necessary to self- 
 preservation. It may, in fact, be safely assumed to 
 be a law of evolutionary development, in the absence 
 of proof or reason to the contrary, that every new 
 species evolved is endowed with primary, that is, 
 inherent, instincts adapted to its use and necessi- 
 ties. Were this not true, each new species would 
 perish before "natural selection" could select. 
 
 I have dwelt at some length upon this branch of 
 the subject for the reason that I desire to make the 
 distinction clear between primary and secondary 
 instincts. This has never been done heretofore; 
 and it seems probable that the unnecessary exploita- 
 tion of the theory of natural selection as an explana- 
 tion of the origin of some of the primary instincts 
 has arisen from the want of a clear apprehension of 
 this distinction. In point of fact, in the hazy atmos- 
 phere of the old psychologies, it was impossible to 
 perceive clearly the line of delimitation between 
 the two classes of instincts. In other words, it was 
 impossible, under the old psychology, to assign a 
 specific, exclusive cause for the development of 
 secondary instincts. This is the crucial question, 
 for when that is known the distinction instantly 
 becomes apparent. 
 
 I have quoted with approval Romanes' very gen- 
 eral statement of the origin of secondary instincts. 
 Briefly stated, it is that habit converts actions that 
 were "originally intelligent" into "permanent
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 131 
 
 instincts." But he does not tell us what was the 
 specific agency that enabled animals to perform 
 " intelligent " actions that are so far distinct from 
 the ordinary instinctive, automatic actions of 
 animals that it requires generations of habitual 
 performance to convert them into permanent in- 
 stincts. Obviously, there is a clear line of demarca- 
 tion somewhere between the two distinct classes of 
 actions; and that the classes are so divergent in 
 their nature, so antithetical in their characteristics, 
 that it is impossible to refer them to a common 
 origin. 
 
 What that distinction -is, the intelligent reader 
 who has followed me thus far has already antici- 
 pated. The following propositions will define my 
 position with sufficient clearness to enable the 
 reader to perceive the significance of the facts 
 which will be adduced in this and in later 
 chapters : N 
 
 1. Primary instincts are those which are inherent , 
 in the__ mental organism of animals in their native 
 environment. They exist antecedent_jto reason, , 
 experience, or instruction, and are transmitted to I 
 posterity by inheritance. They include all that 
 were possessed by animals prior to the development' 
 of a brain organism. <- p^vs^ti^V 
 
 2. Secondary instincts all have their origin in V 
 that intelligence of which the brain is the organ. 
 and_are the result of the reaction of that intelli- | 
 gence upon a new or a changed environment. 
 
 3. They become^ permanent instinctsjifter being ' 
 "performed for several generations," ajid "are then 
 inherited," the same as primary instincts (Darwin). ^
 
 132 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 It will now be seen, by an examination of the facts, 
 that the distinctions above made exactly accord 
 with the history of organic evolution as set forth 
 by Haeckel and other great lights of evolutionary 
 science. 
 
 No such thing as a secondary instinct has been 
 shown to have existed prior to the advent of animal 
 life upon dry land. A brain did not exist during 
 the primordial epoch. During the next epoch a 
 brain began to be developed, and, simultaneously 
 therewith, fern forests appeared upon land, thus 
 rendering it habitable for animal life; and at the 
 same time providing the material for the carbonifer- 
 ous strata which now furnish our supplies of coal 
 and petroleum. And it is a significant fact that 
 it was during the carboniferous period "that some 
 fishes began to accustom themselves to live upon 
 land, and thus gave rise to the amphibian class." 1 
 
 Here, then, are three coincidental facts of pro- 
 found significance, namely: (a) the development of 
 a brain; (b) the development of conditions favor- 
 able to the sustentation of animal life upon dry 
 land, and (c) the advent of the amphibian class, 
 "the earliest terrestrial and air-breathing animals. " 2 
 
 Now, unless we rest content to adopt the hypothe- 
 sis of chance to account for these facts, we must 
 infer, (i) that a brain was developed in response to 
 a rapidly approaching necessity for a change of 
 environment ; and (2) that such a change became 
 possible by the simultaneous development of (a) 
 terrestrial conditions rendering it possible for animal 
 
 1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 13. 
 
 2 Op. cit.
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 133 
 
 life to be sustained on dry land, and (b) a mental 
 organism capable of intelligently responding to 
 those conditions. 
 
 Accordingly we find, as before remarked, (i) that 
 a brain was developed during the second, or palaeo- 
 lithic epoch; (2) that during the middle palaeolithic 
 epoch, or carboniferous period, fern forests and air- 
 breathing animals simultaneously appeared. 
 
 This was the first step in brain development in 
 advance of that of the fishes. It was a small step, 
 it is true, for the amphibia are but very little more 
 intelligent than their immediate ancestors ; but it was 
 the beginning of a vastly more rapid development 
 than was possible in a purely aquatic environment. 
 
 The reader is again referred to the table in 
 Chapter V., showing the percentages of time con- 
 sumed in the development of the various orders and 
 classes of animals before and after the development 
 of a brain. 
 
 It is obvious, at a glance, that the constantly 
 increasing rapidity of development, as shown by the 
 table, must be a fact of profound significance. And 
 when we consider it in connection with the general 
 principle laid down by Darwin and the other authori- 
 ties quoted, that animals possessing the highest 
 intelligence have the most complex instincts, we 
 are prepared to understand the exact function which 
 the brain performs in the development of animal 
 intelligence. We are also enabled to locate the 
 dividing line between primary and secondary in- 
 stincts, and to understand the process by which the 
 latter are primarily developed, and finally become 
 fixed and inheritable attributes of the mind.
 
 134 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 The following propositions are, therefore, pro 
 visionally submitted: 
 
 1. The "intelligent actions" to which Darwin 
 * and Romanes refer as the bases of secondary in" 
 ' stincts, are, in all cases, prompted by that intelli- 
 | gence of which the brain is the organ, namely, the 
 ' objective mind. 
 
 2. The inciting causes of the activity and con- 
 I sequent development of the brain intelligence of 
 \ the lower animals are changes of environmental 
 I conditions. 
 
 . & ! 3- It follows, (a) that all instincts possessed by 
 ," **f" animals prior to the development of a brain are 
 primary instincts; (b) that all instincts originally 
 f J possessed by any given species are, in effect, 
 primary instincts, even though the species itself 
 i may be the result of ancestral development of secon- 
 dary instincts, and (c) that animal intelligence is 
 necessarily proportioned to complexity of environ- 
 | mental conditions. 
 
 Enough has already been said to show, prima 
 facie, that the first proposition is true; the table 
 alone presenting sufficient a priori grounds to sus- 
 tain that theory. If, therefore, the a posteriori 
 reasons point to the same conclusion, the question 
 may be considered as settled. The three proposi- 
 tions will be considered together. 
 
 In the first place, it is very evident that the slow 
 progress of development during the primordial epoch 
 was due to two causes, namely: (i) the purely 
 aquatic environment, which allowed but little varia- 
 tion of conditions; and (2) the absence of brain 
 development, which alone is able to take intelli-
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 135 
 
 gent advantage of any variation in environmental 
 conditions. 
 
 The second, or primary, epoch presented a new 
 condition, in that vegetable life was developed on 
 dry land. But there was still only a limited variety 
 of environmental conditions. It was the age of fern 
 forests, a gigantic vegetal growth of practically 
 one genus. It afforded a temporary refuge for 
 some of the more highly endowed fishes, and hence 
 the gradual development of the amphibia. But the 
 conditions on dry land at that time were even 
 more monotonous than in the sea; and hence the 
 inconceivably slow progress of development of 
 animal life and intelligence. It required, as the 
 table shows, more than thirty-two per cent of the 
 time consumed since the beginning of organic life 
 on this planet, to develop the amphibia, or, rather, 
 to reach a higher order than the amphibia. In 
 other words, it required untold millions of years to 
 perfect that step in the process of organic evolution, 
 notwithstanding the fact that it was taken in pursu- 
 ance of an originally intelligent purpose, as dis- 
 tinguished from an instinctive impulse. It was, in 
 fact, when fishes began to accustom themselves to 
 l^ve upon dry land that the first step was taken in 
 the development of a secondary instinct. It was 
 the first intelligent action of the brain mind that 
 has left its impress upon the organic world. 
 
 It certainly was not a primary instinct that im- 
 pelled a fish to abandon its native element even 
 temporarily. It was an intelligent action, in pur- 
 suance of an intelligent purpose. It was, moreover, 
 "an enterprise of great pith and moment," and one
 
 136 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 that was deliberately taken, and often repeated, 
 through several generations, before it was stereo- 
 typed into a permanent instinct. The theory of 
 natural selection cannot be invoked to account for 
 the beginning of that instinct ; for it could not have 
 been the result of an "accident." It is a matter of 
 common observation that when a fish is accidentally 
 thrown upon dry land he loses no time in working 
 his way back to his native element ; and he is not 
 prone to repeat the experiment of his own volition. 
 There could not, therefore, be the slightest tendency 
 toward a hereditary transmission of terrestrial 
 habits as the result of an accidental or enforced 
 sojourn upon dry land. The tendency, in fact, 
 would be to reinforce the primary instinct which 
 impels fishes to remain in their native element. 
 We must therefore exclude accident, or the ele- 
 ment of chance, as a possible factor in the develop- 
 ment of that secondary instinct which brought into 
 being and perpetuated the amphibia. 
 
 In making this exclusion we thereby also exclude 
 natural selection, or survival of the fittest, as the 
 cause of the development of that particular genus. 
 And I may here remark, parenthetically, that natural 
 selection, or survival of the fittest, is not, properly 
 speaking, the original cause of variation in, or 
 origin of, species. I do not deny that it is a factor 
 of the utmost importance; but it is not an original 
 cause. It is not even a law of nature, strictly 
 speaking; for natural law is properly defined as 
 "the uniform occurrence of natural phenomena in 
 the same way or order under the same conditions." 
 The term "survival of the fittest" does not describe
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 137 
 
 a uniform occurrence of natural phenomena. On 
 the contrary, it is made to cover a great variety of 
 phenomena, some of them of exactly opposite char- 
 acter to others. Thus, among animals, other things 
 being equal, those possessing the greatest strength 
 are the ones that survive. In some cases it means a 
 survival of the swiftest. Among the higher animals 
 it is often the most sagacious, as in man. Among 
 nations it was formerly a question of numbers and 
 the physical prowess of the private soldier; and it 
 was thus that the " fittest " to survive were the bar- 
 barous hordes that destroyed the civilization of 
 ancient Rome. In modern times the most skilful 
 men behind the biggest guns are the survivors, 
 physical strength being a factor of the least impor- 
 tance. As between savages and civilized men in 
 times of peace, the fittest to survive are those who 
 require the least area of land from which to draw 
 their sustenance. Thus, the North American Indian 
 required a vast territory to supply him with the 
 necessary game to enable him to live; while his 
 civilized neighbor could sustain himself in comfort 
 on a few acres of land. But in war the modern 
 appliances of warfare place the savages at a disad- 
 vantage. As between different races living together 
 and sustaining peaceful relations, the fittest to sur- 
 vive may be the ones who can live and labor on the 
 least or the cheapest food. Thus, the Chinaman, 
 who can live on a handful of rice per day, once 
 threatened to starve the American laborer to death, 
 and would have done so but for the passage of laws 
 restricting Chinese immigration. In that case the 
 inferior race would have been the fittest, and he
 
 138 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 would have survived the wreck of our civilization. 
 But, with the passage of that law, the conditions of 
 survival were instantly reversed; for our ability to 
 enforce that law depended upon our superior military 
 and naval strength, notwithstanding the disparity in 
 numbers. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the so-called law of 
 "survival of the fittest" is not a law of nature, but 
 a condition, an incident, and not a primary cause. 
 It is an effect of other and far deeper and more 
 important causes. 
 
 In saying this, I must not be understood as seek- 
 
 ' ing to eliminate natural selection or the survival of 
 the fittest as a factor in the progressive development 
 
 | of organic life. Far from it. That theory is indis- 
 pensable in any hypothesis which seeks to account 
 for the existence of the organic world on principles 
 
 I of evolutionary development. What I wish to show 
 is, that the theory is overloaded with burdens that 
 do not properly belong to it ; but^more particularly, 
 
 i that jt__is a condition the causes of which must them- 
 selves be accounted for on other grounds than those 
 
 Nset forth by Darwin and his followers. 
 
 As before stated, theirs is the doctrine of chance. 
 Eliminate that element from the Darwinian theory, 
 and there is little left of it. Not that I would 
 undertake to eliminate that factor entirely from the 
 process of evolutionary development. No one who 
 has intelligently observed the progressive develop- 
 ment of varieties of species among domestic animals 
 can doubt the fact that the element of accident or 
 chance has entered very largely into the process. 
 Among breeders of domestic animals this element
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 139 
 
 is largely though not entirely eliminated by intelli- 
 gent artificial and sexual selection. But domesti- 
 cation itself is an accident; that is to say, it is out 
 of the natural order, and the result of fortuitous 
 circumstances. 
 
 We may, therefore, give due credit to the element 
 of accident, and fortuitous changes of environment, 
 which is much the same thing, for a large part of 
 the phenomena of variation of species. And we 
 may also give the theory the benefit of the doubt in 
 many cases where the question of the origin of 
 species is involved; since it is often difficult to 
 determine whether two given animals belong to 
 different species or represent extreme variations of 
 the same species. It will become evident, however, 
 as we proceed, that the element of chance is a less 
 potent factor in the origin of species than it is in 
 the production of morphological variations; that it 
 is still less in the origin of genera than in that of 
 species; that, in short, the farther we go back in 
 the history of organic evolution the less potent is 
 the element of chance; and the more potent is the 
 element of intelligence, that is, instinctive intelli- 
 gence, as a factor in the progressive development of 
 the organic world. 
 
 Nevertheless, we cannot wholly eliminate fortui- 
 tism at any given stage; for it is obvious that many 
 changes .of environmental conditions may occur 
 which animal intelligence cannot have originated; 
 e. g., when a great cataclysm of nature segregates 
 a genus or a species from the parent stock or its 
 native environment. 
 
 This is somewhat of a digression; but it became
 
 140 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 necessary in order to define clearly the issue 
 between fortuitism, which is the argument of 
 Darwin, Haeckel, and their followers, and the teleo- 
 logical argument of which I am building the founda- 
 tion out of their own materials. 
 
 With that class of reasoners chance is everything, 
 especially everything of a causal nature. It is 
 veiled under a multitude of words of learned length 
 and scientific sound ; but the last analysis of their 
 argument reveals chance as their ultimate as well 
 as their proximate cause. Thus, they assume that 
 it was a fortuitous juxtaposition and final union of 
 certain chemical elements that produced a living 
 organism endowed with a mind (Haeckel). It was 
 fortuitism that developed the primary instincts 
 (Romanes). It was a series of accidents that was 
 responsible for the origin of species (Darwin). 
 
 It will now be seen that the whole trend and 
 tendency of their argument is to place organism in 
 advance of intelligence, physical structure in 
 advance of mind. The obvious reason for this atti- 
 tude is, that the clear, analytical mind of Darwin 
 easily foresaw that if it were once admitted that 
 mind sustained, in any degree whatsoever, a causal 
 relation to physical structure, the admission, carried 
 to its legitimate conclusion, would make for teleology 
 or theism. 
 
 It thus becomes obvious why Darwin so contemptu- 
 ously rejected the Lamarckian doctrine of appetency, 
 which was, in a less clearly defined form, also held 
 by his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. The La- 
 marckian theory is summed up with sufficient clear- 
 ness for our present purpose by Geddes, in his article
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 141 
 
 on " Variation and Selection " in the " Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica," in words following: 
 
 " The well-known theory of Lamarck laid special em- 
 phasis on function and environment ; for, though the sense 
 of need in association with suitable environment calls out a 
 succession of efforts, and so originates incipient structural 
 modifications, it is to increased functioning that the in- 
 crease of these modifications must be ascribed, while sim- 
 ilarly disuse explains degeneration. Changed conditions 
 produce new wants, nutritive and reproductive; hence 
 changes in climate, or the like, change the organism by 
 changing its habits. Rapid increase is checked by other 
 organisms : the strongest and best armed for attack devour 
 the weaker, and the less perfect genera are kept down by 
 the more perfect." 
 
 It will thus be seen that the gist of Lamarck's 
 theory was that changes of physical structure are 
 brought about in response to impulses from within, 
 which impulses arise from the necessities imposed by 
 environment. Lamarck illustrates the principle in 
 the following words : 
 
 " I conceive that a gasteropod mollusk, which, as it crawls 
 along, finds the need of touching the bodies in front of it, 
 makes the effort to touch those bodies with some of the 
 foremost parts of its head, and sends to these every time 
 quantities of nervous fluids, as well as other liquids. I con- 
 ceive, I say, that it must result from this reiterated afflux 
 towards the points in question that the nerves which abut 
 at these points will, by slow degrees, be extended. Now, 
 as in the same circumstances other fluids of the animal flow 
 also to the same places, and especially nourishing fluids, 
 it must follow that two or more tentacles will appear and
 
 142 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 develop insensibly in those circumstances on the points 
 referred to." 
 
 Now, if it be objected that such a process of growth 
 would require very many generations to perfect the 
 tentacles of a gasteropod mollusk, it may well be 
 asked how long it would take to perform the same 
 feat under natural selection? In other words, how 
 many accidents of a similar character, occurring in 
 the same family, in successive generations, would 
 be required to endow a species permanently with 
 tentacles? 
 
 The long neck of the giraffe has also been used to 
 illustrate the Lamarckian theory; the necessities of 
 its environment and the nature of its daily food re- 
 quiring that animal to reach to the higher branches 
 of trees in search of sustenance. 
 
 In view of the facts that modern science has ex- 
 perimentally developed regarding the unlimited power 
 of the subjective mind of man over the functions, 
 sensations, and conditions of his body, it requires no 
 effort of imagination or of credulity, no soaring into 
 regions of speculative philosophy, to arrive at the 
 conclusion that the active agency of development 
 resides within all sentient creatures ; and that accident 
 plays but a very subordinate part in the process of 
 organic evolution. 
 
 Volumes might be filled with illustrative experi- 
 ments made by scientists demonstrating the power of 
 the subjective mind over the body its power of 
 modifying function, increasing or decreasing the cir- 
 culation of the blood, of causing or allaying fevers, 
 of healing or of causing lesions, as in bloody stig-
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 143 
 
 mata (Bernheim), or of its power over diseases in 
 general; but the reader must be referred to the 
 current literature on the subject. It must suffice to 
 remark that the evidence is sufficient to warrant the 
 provisional assumption that the subjective, or instinc- 
 tive, minds of animals have the power of so modi- 
 fying the structure of their bodies by constant 
 refunctioning of particular parts, as to produce, in the 
 course of time, new organs adapted to the exigencies 
 of physical environment. 
 
 If we reason from the ontogeny of the individual to 
 the phylogeny of the species, the evidence becomes 
 conclusive in many instances. As this method of 
 reasoning is constantly insisted upon by the ablest 
 biologists as being demonstrative, we will cite an 
 instance in point. It is well known that some insects, 
 a few batrachians, and many fishes possess the power 
 of changing their colors to conform to that of their 
 immediate surroundings. This is done for the pur- 
 pose of concealment from natural enemies; and the 
 power, especially among fishes, is wonderfully near 
 perfection. With some species a great variety of 
 colors and color combinations seems to be at instant 
 command. Now, it is obvious that this power of in- 
 stantaneous change is brought about by an instinc- 
 tive impulse. It is an adaptation of means to ends 
 of so pronounced and varied a character that " reflex 
 action" cannot be invoked as an explanation. Rea- 
 soning, therefore, from ontogeny to phylogeny, we 
 must suppose that the faculty is the result of an 
 instinctive impulse. And this is true whether we 
 classify the instinct as primary or secondary. In 
 other words, the impulse which caused the necessary
 
 144 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 structural growth was from within ; and mind preceded 
 organism and function. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the Lamarckian doctrine 
 of appetency is a necessary factor in any theory of 
 progressive development of animal life that is com- 
 petent to explain all the facts. Neither the Darwin- 
 ian theory of natural selection, nor the Lamarckian 
 doctrine of appetency, is complete without the other. 
 The latter, indeed, bears a causal relation to the 
 former; and it explains all that the doctrine of nat- 
 ural selection leaves unexplained. Moreover, appe- 
 tency is a law of nature. Natural selection is not. 
 No amount of sophistry, no weight of great names 
 or authority, can invest a series of accidents with 
 that dignity. Moreover, a series of accidents, how- 
 ever numerous or important, can neither cause nor 
 adequately explain the orderly, progressive develop- 
 ment of anything, much less the evolution of a uni- 
 verse, or a planet, or of humanity. It requires a 
 law to do that ; and to Lamarck is due the credit of 
 having made a partial discovery of that law. 
 
 It will now be seen that the true relation which 
 Latnarckism and Darwinism sustain to each other is 
 this : The law of appetency underlies the phenomena 
 of natural selection. This will be further elucidated 
 in subsequent chapters. 
 
 It remains to explain the modus operandi of the 
 Lamarckian law; and this brings us back to the 
 propositions set forth just before the beginning of 
 this digression. 
 
 Briefly restated, the gist of the propositions is 
 this: Progressive development of animal intelli- 
 gence, and concomitant structural changes, are
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 145 
 
 primarily due to the constant accretion of secondary 
 instincts; the latter being the result of the develop- 
 ment of the brain intelligence, and this, in turn, 
 being due to a constantly increasing complexity of 
 environmental conditions. The latter clause of the 
 proposition will not be disputed after a moment's 
 reflection. It is a matter of common experience and 
 observation that, other things being equal, the culture 
 and consequent progress of each individual depends 
 largely, if not wholly, upon environmental conditions. 
 The mute, inglorious Miltons who people the country 
 churchyards differed from the author of " Paradise 
 Lost" only because of the difference of environment. 
 The farmer's son who forsakes the parental roof and 
 becomes great and honored, who commands the 
 applause of listening senates or wades through 
 slaughter to a throne, may possess no more native 
 talent than the brother who chooses to remain at 
 home to break the stubborn glebe and inherit the 
 homely joys and destiny obscure of his rude fore- 
 fathers. The difference is due to a changed environ- 
 ment, whether the change be the result of accident, 
 or of necessity, or of deliberate choice. Be that as 
 it may, the fact remains that the greater complexities 
 of the new environment furnish the stimuli to that 
 culture which constitutes " intelligent adaptation." 
 There are, of course, vast differences in the capacity 
 of individuals to adapt themselves to new environ- 
 ments ; and it is this difference that determines the 
 question of survival of the fittest. In any event, it is 
 an impulse from within that constitutes the motive 
 power of progressional development. 
 
 The same rules hold good in the realm of animal 
 10
 
 146 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 life. It is a change of environment that furnishes the 
 stimulus to mental growth; and consequently, the 
 more complex the new environment the greater 
 the stimulus and the more rapid the progress toward 
 intelligent adaptation to the new conditions. And as 
 it is with a man, so it is with an animal : its ability to 
 adapt itself to, and to take intelligent advantage of, 
 new environmental conditions, constitutes the effec- 
 tive factor in its progressive development. 
 
 Now, as the instinct of self-preservation is one of 
 the two generic primary instincts common to all 
 sentient creatures, it follows that the salient features 
 of any new environment in which one of the lower 
 animals finds itself, and which stimulate its mental 
 activity, consist of new dangers to be encountered 
 and new methods of obtaining sustenance. These 
 conditions must be met intelligently, if at all success- 
 fully. The primary instincts which belong to the 
 animal in its native environment are useless to it 
 when new dangers are encountered. In other words, 
 the subjective mind, owing to its limitations, is not 
 capable of coping with new conditions. But the 
 objective, or brain, mind is specially adapted Jto_th at 
 x exigency ; and as soon as it has learned the source 
 of danger, it intelligently avoids it in the future. 
 When this intelligent action has been performed for 
 a few generations, it becomes converted into an 
 instinct and is then inherited. Instances have already 
 been citedA^ 
 
 This, then, is the way that secondary instincts are 
 created or evolved. It must be remarked, in this 
 connection, that old instincts are lost whenever the 
 conditions of a new environment render them no
 
 THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 147 
 
 longer useful, as in the case of animals that have been 
 domesticated. 
 
 We are now prepared to understand the full signifi- 
 cance of the geometrically increasing ratio of develop- 
 ment of animal intelligence after a brain became a 
 factor in the process of evolution. Each successive 
 epoch being distinguished by a constantly augment- 
 ing fauna, the environment was correspondingly 
 increased in complexity. As dangers multiplied, the 
 difficulty of obtaining food increased, and the conse- 
 quence was that sagacity became a factor of constantly 
 increasing importance. Even the larger carnivora, 
 whose strength and ferocity rendered them irresistible 
 in open warfare, were compelled to resort to strategic 
 measures to secure their prey from among the 
 weaker but swifter or more sagacious animals. The 
 latter were compelled to exercise their sagacity, not 
 only in securing nourishment, but in constantly 
 guarding against dangers arising from contact with 
 other animals who were armed with superior weapons 
 of offensive and defensive warfare. Thus, it happens 
 that, as Darwin declares, and all other intelligent 
 naturalists admit (Cuvier excepted), animals possess- 
 ing " the most wonderful instincts are certainly the 
 most intelligent." 1 
 
 In the mean time the Lamarckian law prevailed, 
 each newly acquired instinct effecting a correspond- 
 ing modification of physical structure, which, in the 
 fullness of time and amplitude of development, con- 
 stituted either new genera or new species. Incident- 
 ally, natural selection tended to preserve those animals 
 which were the most highly endowed, physically or 
 1 Descent of Man, p. 67.
 
 148 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 mentally. In other words, the so-called " law of 
 survival of the fittest " is an incidental result of that 
 struggle for life which followed the evolution of 
 antagonistic genera and species under the law of 
 appetency. 
 
 It will thus be seen that mind was, in all cases, 
 antecedent to, and the cause of, structural changes. 
 It must not be forgotten, however, that it was the 
 subjective, or instinctive, mind that effected all pro- 
 gressive development, from the moneron to man. 
 The objective, or brain, mind is, and always has been, 
 the educator of the subjective mind. That is to say, 
 by its intelligent action in emergencies it constantly 
 originated new or secondary instincts ; and these, in 
 turn, became a part of the subjective mental equip- 
 ment of the animal, and, by inheritance, of the 
 species to which it belonged. In the mean time 
 each instinct, primary or secondary, continues to 
 form an inheritable part of the mental equipment 
 of a species as long as it is useful. 
 
 /* The mental equipment, therefore, of each individual 
 animal, other things being equal, comprises the sum- 
 
 1 total of all its ancestral instincts that remain useful, 
 
 J plus its objective, or reasoning, intelligence. Hence 
 \( it is that the great bulk of the aggregate of ani- 
 mal intelligence consists of that consolidated, cor- 
 related congeries of primary and secondary instincts 
 which has been inherited from its ancestry, near and 
 
 \ remote.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Instincts of the Unicellular Organism. Its Impellent Energy. 
 The Constant Force back of Evolution. The Law is Progress. 
 Nature's Nwum Organum. Useful Instincts a Permanent Her- 
 itage. Appetency the Effective Agency of Progressive Develop- 
 ment. Every Mind Organism a Union of Elements of Conserva- 
 tion and Progress. The Immutability of Natural Law. The 
 same Laws prevail in Organic and Mental, Moral and Spiritual 
 Development. Primary Instincts the same in Animals and 
 Men. The same is true of Secondary Instincts. Instinct and 
 Intuition Identical. Emotions have the same Root and Origin. 
 Religious Worship a Filial Emotion. Animal Telepathy. 
 Telekinetic Energy. Objective and Subjective Memory differ- 
 entiated. In Men as in Animals the Increasing Complexities of 
 Environment the Spur to Progressive Development. In Men as 
 in Animals the Bulk of Intelligence is Subjective. The Ulti- 
 mate Ego is the Subjective Entity. All that is worth Preserv- 
 ing in the Future Life resides in the Subjective Mind. 
 
 THE salient features of the processes of organic 
 and mental evolution, thus far developed, may 
 be summed up by way of recapitulation as follows : 
 I. The unicellular organism, from which science 
 traces the pedigree of man, possesses, in common 
 with all other animals, what is generically termed the 
 " instinct of self-preservation." In other words, it 
 possesses the inherent, intuitional power or faculty of 
 perception, antecedent to reason or instruction, of the 
 essential laws of its being, including the law of pro- 
 gressive development.
 
 150 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 2. This instinctive perception constantly impels to 
 acts preservative of the individual and of the species, 
 including those which are promotive of improve- 
 ment. 
 
 3. This instinctive impulse constitutes the constant 
 force in nature which is the efficient cause of the 
 evolution of all genera and species. 
 
 4. This constant force is modified by environ- 
 mental conditions; and hence the infinite variety 
 and number of genera and species. 
 
 5. The law, however, is progress; and hence there 
 was a constant, though slow rate of progressive de- 
 velopment during the primordial epoch, at the close 
 of which a brain was developed and the lowest of 
 the vertebrata appeared. 
 
 6. When a brain appeared, it was literally a novum 
 orgamim a new organ of mentation; and, true 
 to the Baconian nomenclature, it was the organ of 
 "inductive reasoning;" and this became the edu- 
 cator of instinct. 
 
 7. This education was carried o.n by the intelli- 
 gent performance of acts which were useful or 
 preservative, which acts were in process of time 
 converted into instincts and then became the per- 
 manent heritage of the species. 
 
 8. The objective, or brain, mind is, therefore, the 
 agency by which new emergencies are met and new 
 instincts are developed ; and the subjective, or in- 
 stinctive, mind is the agency by which the new or 
 secondary instincts are assimilated, retained, co- 
 ordinated with other faculties, and thus made of 
 permanent benefit to the species. 
 
 9. In the mean time that primordial impulse which
 
 RECAPITULA TION. 1 5 1 
 
 has been denominated " appetency," and which is the 
 effective agency, par excellence, of progressive de- 
 velopment, is the inseparable concomitant, if not 
 indeed an integral element, of the instinct of self- 
 preservation ; and it is still as potential an element 
 of every subjective intelligence as it was when the 
 first group of amcebae united to form a multicellular 
 organism. 
 
 10. It follows that every animal intelligence unites 
 within itself the elements, not only for its own con- 
 servation, but for its progressive development; and, 
 all being faculties of the subjective mind, they are 
 transmissible by inheritance, and are consequently 
 the permanent endowment of the species to which 
 it belongs. 
 
 n. Again, as remarked at the close of the pre- 
 ceding chapter, the mental equipment of each in- 
 dividual animal, other things being equal, comprises 
 the sum-total of all its ancestral instincts, primary and 
 secondary, that have remained useful, plus its objec- 
 tive, or reasoning, intelligence. 
 
 12. The foregoing considerations are at once ex- 
 planatory and confirmative of the conclusion arrived 
 at by Pouchet and Morgan, and admitted by Darwin, 
 that animals possessing the most complex instincts 
 are the most intelligent. 
 
 We are now prepared to take one step further in 
 tracing the processes of evolutionary development of 
 mind on this planet. 
 
 That there is " no variableness or shadow of turn- 
 ing " in the Great First Cause is an axiom that will not 
 be disputed by the theologian who sees the hand of 
 God in the processes of evolution, nor by the materi-
 
 152 777^: DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 alistic scientist who has convinced himself, by his 
 peculiar processes of " induction," that the evolu- 
 tionary development of physical and mental organ- 
 isms is the result of a blind operation of correlate 
 forces inherent in matter. 
 
 Neither of them should, therefore, be incredulous 
 when he is told that the same laws and processes 
 that developed the mental organism of animals, from 
 the moneron to man, are the active agencies of 
 man's progressive development from primitive sav- 
 agery to the highest civilization, mental, moral, and 
 religious. 
 
 I have already remarked upon the fact that the 
 great bulk of the intelligence of an animal is made 
 up of its accumulated ancestral instincts and pro- 
 pensities; the brain intelligence being merely a use- 
 ful adjunct specially adapted to the exigencies of 
 a physical environment. This is obviously true for 
 two reasons, namely, the comparatively limited brain, 
 or objective, intelligence of animals ; but especially 
 because all the primary instincts and propensities 
 were inherited from the skull-less animals of the 
 primordial epoch. 
 
 Now, if man is descended from the lower animals, 
 it follows that the same is true of him ; the only 
 possible difference being one of degree or of modifi- 
 cations resulting from environmental conditions. A 
 few words will make my meaning clear. 
 
 That the primary instincts are shared in common 
 by man and the lower animals, does not admit of 
 argument or dispute. These obviously belong to 
 the primary intelligence, or the subjective mind, 
 the mind that existed millions of years antecedent
 
 RECA PITULA TION. 1 5 3 
 
 to the objective mind, of which the brain is the 
 organ. 
 
 The same is necessarily true of the secondary 
 instincts ; for they are but so many additions to the 
 original stock of primary instincts. All instincts, 
 therefore, belong to the subjective mind. 
 
 Intuition, being but another name for a higher 
 instinct, also belongs to the subjective mind; as also 
 does its concomitant faculty of potentially inerrant 
 deduction. 
 
 The " emotions " of man are obviously identical 
 with the " animal propensities " of his lower ances- 
 tors ; and as they antedate the brain, they are 
 necessarily faculties of the subjective mind. The 
 higher emotions of man being but the modified, edu- 
 cated, regulated, and purified emotions or propensi- 
 ties of the lower animals, must all be classed as 
 faculties of the subjective mind. Even the emotion 
 of religious worship finds its root and origin in the 
 intuitive recognition of the Divine Fatherhood. 
 
 That the faculty of telepathy also belongs to the 
 subjective mind has been amply demonstrated by 
 researches in experimental psychology, notably those 
 of the Society for Psychical Research. Whether 
 animals possess that faculty in such a degree 
 as to be able to communicate with each other, 
 and if so to what extent, are mooted questions among 
 scientists. It is, however, a well-established fact that 
 man can impress certain domestic animals 1 telepathi- 
 cally. Be that as it may, it may be set down as 
 axiomatic that any faculty that is found to exist in 
 the subjective mind of man necessarily existed, 
 
 1 See " The Law of Psychic Phenomena," chapter ix.
 
 154 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 potentially at least, in the minds of his ancestry, 
 near and remote. It is, in fact, upon this fundamen- 
 tal truth that the vitality of evolutionary processes 
 depends. 
 
 Telekinetic energy, which has been variously des- 
 ignated as psychic force (Sir William Crookes), 
 ectenic force (Professor Thury), and telekinesis 
 (Professor Coues), is demonstrably a power or faculty 
 of the subjective mind. This is true whether we 
 attribute its phenomena to the embodied or to the 
 disembodied souls of men. This, I scarcely need to 
 remark, is the power to move ponderable bodies 
 without physical contact or mechanical agencies. I 
 shall have more to say of this force hereinafter. It 
 is mentioned here only to complete the list of sub- 
 jective faculties as set forth in the tabular statement 
 in Chapter II., to which the reader is again referred. 
 In the mean time I ask the reader to accept the state- 
 ment, provisionally, that telekinetic energy belongs 
 wholly to the subjective mind. 
 
 I have reserved the faculty of memory for the last, 
 because it is shared by the objective mind. More- 
 over, it is the only faculty that is shared by the two 
 minds. But the points of differentiation are so -nu- 
 merous and so radical that they must be considered 
 separately. 
 
 The memory of the objective mind is merely the 
 concomitant of induction, the latter being the only 
 faculty belonging exclusively to the objective mind. 
 As induction presupposes facts to reason from, its 
 organ is necessarily endowed with a memory. But, 
 like every other physical organ, the brain has its 
 limitations of power, and these are extended by
 
 RECA P ITU LA T1ON. 1 5 5 
 
 exercise and cultivation. Cerebral anatomists tell us v 
 that a new brain cell is created for every new objec- ' 
 tive experience. These cells, therefore, constitute ' 
 receptacles for brain memories; and their efficiency ' '../. 
 depends upon constant or frequent refunctioning. If ' v - <J , 
 that is neglected, the cell necessarily atrophies, *^- 
 precisely as every other physical organ atrophies 
 for lack of exercise. Hence the so-called imperfec- t~ ' 
 tion, or evanescent character, of the memory of the '*> 
 objective mind. Hence, also, the common obser- / 
 vation that _our stock of knowledge is measured 
 by what we remember and not by what we have^. 
 learned. 
 
 This is eminently true of both minds ; but as the 
 subjective mind is not dependent for its continued 
 existence nor for its efficiency upon any physical 
 organ or organism, its memory does not depend upon 
 the continued refunctioning of brain cells, nor, indeed, 
 of those of any other physical organ. Its memory 
 is therefore an inherent power or faculty which defies 
 the analysis of the physicist, and cannot be eliminated 
 with the scalpel. The subjective mind, therefore, is \ 
 literally the " storehouse of memory," for it retains I 
 and assimilates everything that the objective mind ' 
 acquires, besides much of what the latter has never 
 consciously possessed. ^ r ' ^o^J. -v-^*^ ^ Jo^~4s. 
 
 Nor are these all of the memorial possessions of the 
 subjective mind. As we have already seen in dis-i 
 cussing animal instinct, whenever an action becomes I 
 instinctive it is transmitted by inheritance to the 
 posterity of the animal, and it is retained as the 
 heritage of all future generations so long as it re- ^ 
 mains useful to the species. This being true alike of
 
 156 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 primary and secondary instincts, it follows that the 
 subjective, or instinctive, mind of each animal is a 
 storehouse, not only of memories of individual 
 experiences, but of all its ancestral experiences that 
 remain useful. That the same proposition is true of 
 man's subjective mind it needs no argument to sus- 
 tain. Nor must we lose sight of the correlative fact, 
 which all intelligent naturalists now admit, that the 
 higher the intelligence of animals the more complex 
 are their instincts ; and that the same is necessarily 
 true of man. Then, when we reflect that the range 
 and complexity of man's instinctive intelligence are 
 constantly augmented by the multiplying variations 
 of his environmental conditions incident to the pro- 
 gressive development of civilization, which in turn is 
 constantly creating new wants and necessities of 
 existence, physical, mental, moral, and spiritual, and 
 as constantly revealing correlative dangers to be 
 avoided or overcome, we may begin to realize how 
 infinitely complex must be the instincts of man when 
 compared with those of the most intelligent of the 
 lower animals. 
 
 Again, as with the lower animals, so with man, 
 acquired or secondary instincts, together with pri- 
 mary instincts, are transmitted by descent, and 
 rernain as hereditaments of the species sq_long jis 
 they remain useful. It_f^ ows that with man as with 
 animals, the subjective mind is the storehouse of 
 ancestral memories ; and when we add to these the 
 perfect memory of individual experiences and of 
 acquired knowledge, however superficially it may 
 have been impressed upon the objective mind, we 
 may begin to approach a realization of what a vast
 
 RECAPITULA TION. 157 
 
 storehouse of latent memorial intelligence is the sub- 
 jective mind of the average civilized man. 
 
 It will now be seen that it is true of man as it is of 
 the lower animals, that the great bulk of his intel- 
 ligence is resident in the subjective mind. The 
 psycho-physical faculty of inductive reasoning con- 
 stitutes the only exception ; and that faculty, as I 
 have often repeated, is simply a highly specialized 
 faculty which is the function of a highly differentiated 
 physical organ, and is especially adapted to serve as 
 a temporary guide through the mazes of a physical 
 environment. But it is no more a permanent faculty' 
 of the ultimate Ego than is any other physical func- 
 tion, and for precisely the same reason : it_ would_be 
 .useless in any other than a physical environ m en t. 
 In dealing with the subjective mind of man, there- 
 fore, we are dealing with all that goes to make up the 
 real man, all, indeed, that could contribute to a per- 
 fect manhood in an environment of truth. We are 
 dealing with all of man that can possibly survive the 
 dissolution of the physical investiture, all that is 
 worth preserving for the future life. But it must not 
 be forgotten that we are also dealing with an entity 
 whose every faculty is essential, ajuLjs moreover 
 ejsrjecially adapted, to the^ existence of a disembodied 
 j>oul in an environment of perfect truth. 1 
 
 It remains to inquire how this entity has been 
 developed since man appeared. This inquiry will 
 necessarily include the evolution of civilization from 
 savagery, and incidentally of the evolution of man as 
 a moral and religious being. This, of course, is a 
 
 1 For a full discussion of this branch of the general subject, see 
 " A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life."
 
 158 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 vast subject, to treat which exhaustively would re- 
 quire many volumes. I shall therefore be com- 
 pelled to content myself with a brief generalization, 
 my principal object being to state the general psy- 
 chological principles involved in the process of 
 development.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 
 
 The Simplicity of Nature's Laws. Evolution no Exception. Two 
 Instincts responsible for all the Phenomena of Evolutionary 
 Development. Self-Preservation and the Instinct of Evolution : 
 one Conservative, the other Progressive and Creative. Nat- 
 ural Selection not a Law, but an Incident. Evolutionary 
 Instinct a Constant Force. It is also Altruistic in all its Im- 
 pulses. Illustrations from Every-Day Life. Fallacies of the 
 Old Philosophies. They refer Everything to Instinct of Self-Pres- 
 ervation. With them ail Virtue or Benevolence a Sublimated 
 Form of Selfishness. Herbert Spencer's Philosophy of Utilitari- 
 anism. Pure Selfishness. Altruistic Acts the most Pleasur- 
 able, because in Harmony with the Strongest Instinct. Pri- 
 mordial Altruism. The Creative Energy Inherent in all Sentient 
 Creatures. Human Character determined by Relative Develop- 
 ment of the Two Instincts. Altruistic Impulses Predominant in 
 the World. Welfare of Future Generations the Incentive. 
 Schools, Colleges, Churches, and Eleemosynary Institutions, are 
 Examples. Altruistic Instinct Stronger than Instinct of Self- 
 Preservation, otherwise there could be no Progress. The most 
 Altruistic Governments the most Progressive, and the People the 
 most Patriotic and Brave and Warlike and Humane. Progress 
 toward Universal Altruism Constant and Rapid. Atavistic and 
 Degenerate Nations. Their Decadence. Central Ideas of 
 Evolutionists and Christian Theism harmonized. The Evolu- 
 tionary Instinct the Impellent Energy of Physical, Mental, Moral, 
 and Religious Progress. 
 
 IT is a common remark that the laws of nature 
 are simple to the last degree. This is literally 
 true, at least in the sense that they can generally be 
 formulated in terms that are easily understood. The 
 law of organic evolution constitutes no exception to 
 this rule. Indeed it furnishes one of the most strik-
 
 160 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 ing illustrations of it ; for it will be found upon the 
 last analysis that every step in organic evolution, 
 every advance in the evolution of civilization, every 
 step in mental, moral, or spiritual development, are 
 directly referable to two primordial instincts. The 
 first is the instinct of self-preservation, and the second 
 is that to which the Lamarckian philosophers have 
 given the very inadequate title of " appetency." The 
 term was doubtless expressive of all that it was in- 
 tended to embrace ; but, for reasons which will appear 
 later on, it is inadequate to express all that it implies. 
 I shall provisionally designate it as the evolutionary 
 instinct, and define it as the instinct which impels the 
 organic world onward in the path of progressive 
 development.* A moment's reflection will make it 
 clear that without such an instinct there could be no 
 real progress in the organic world. The instinct of 
 self-preservation is merely the conservator of existing 
 conditions, and is destitute of a single impulse toward 
 progress. It is purely self-regarding and conserva- 
 tive ; and with that alone as a motive force the pro- 
 cess of organic evolution would have been arrested 
 at the threshold of sentient existence. The monera 
 would have remained in the mass for all time; for in 
 the absence of the progressive impulse there would 
 have been no incentive to reproduction. 
 
 The term " evolution " is expressive of a series of 
 progressive changes, or a process of progressive 
 development. That it is a law of nature no one 
 will gainsay. Being a law of nature, it presupposes 
 a constant, impellent, antecedent force or energy 
 inherent in each individual organism that is subject 
 to the law. The only possible alternative hypothe-
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. l6l 
 
 ses are miracle and chance; and either one would 
 remove the subject-matter outside the domain of 
 law. The former, of course, cannot be considered 
 in a scientific treatise. The latter can only be 
 treated as a possible factor; but it is merely inci- 
 dental and always subordinate. Accidents may, and 
 constantly do, happen ; and an accident may modify 
 or control, favorably or otherwise, the orderly se- 
 quence of events naturally arising from a constantly 
 operative antecedent cause. But neither an acci- 
 dent nor the result of an accident, however fre- 
 quently the former may be repeated or however 
 uniform or beneficent may be the latter, can ever 
 be elevated to the dignity of a law of nature. 
 The same may be said of incidents happening in 
 the regular course of things, for they are always 
 subordinate to the main purpose. And this is the 
 best that can be said of the so-called law of natural 
 selection, or the survival of the fittest. It is inci- 
 dental to the law of evolution ; it is not the law itself. 
 It occurs in the natural order of progressive devel- 
 opment ; but it does not, of itself, constitute the pro- 
 cess of development. It is, indeed, an indispensable 
 concomitant of the process. But it is preservative, 
 not causative. 
 
 This, indeed, is all that Darwin himself claimed for 
 natural selection. " It implies only the preservation 
 of such variations as arise and are beneficial to the 
 being under its conditions of life," 1 are his words. 
 The rest was left to chance. Romanes adopts nat- 
 ural selection as his theory of the origin of primary 
 instincts, as I have pointed out in a previous chapter, 
 
 1 Origin of Species, p. 99. 
 II
 
 1 62 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 and distinctly relegates everything to chance. As I 
 have before intimated, I do not object to the theory 
 of natural selection when considered solely as the 
 preservative element of organic evolution. But the 
 theory, as set forth by its author and his followers, 
 presupposes the " variations," or structural changes, 
 to arise from chance, and not from any instinctive 
 impulse due to the necessities of the being under 
 its environmental conditions. The Darwinian theory 
 is, therefore, conspicuously inadequate as an expla- 
 nation of the most important part of the process 
 of organic evolution. It is wholly negative in its 
 character and scope, in that it fails to point out 
 that positive, constant force or energy that could 
 alone entitle it to a place in the category of ascer- 
 tained laws of nature. This omission, as I have 
 already repeatedly pointed out, is supplied by the 
 Lamarckian doctrine of " appetency," or, as I have 
 designated it, the " evolutionary instinct." 
 
 The theory of evolution, however, can be simpli- 
 fied to the last degree and rendered adequate to the 
 explanation of all the facts by assuming the evolu- 
 tionary instinct to be simply correlative to the in- 
 stinct of self-preservation. The latter has been 
 grievously overloaded by the philosophic world, 
 and forced to perform duties that were utterly for- 
 eign to the purposes of its existence. By a system 
 of logical legerdemain it has been made to pose in 
 the guise of altruism, whereas altruism is its abso- 
 lute opposite. It has been burdened with the care 
 of the family, the tribe, the state, and the nation, 
 and charged with the duty of promoting progress ; 
 whereas it is at best but the conservator of that
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 163 
 
 which ministers to self. It is, therefore, purely 
 negative in its character; for it is utterly destitute 
 of that positive energy which makes for progress. 
 That energy is supplied by the instinct of evolu- 
 tion. And it is only by including that as one of 
 the primordial instincts, and as merely a concomi- 
 tant of the instinct of self-preservation, that a theory 
 of evolution can be formulated that will account for 
 all the facts. 
 
 This instinct, broadly speaking, is the impulse 
 toward improvement, as distinguished from the im- 
 pulse to preserve. In the lower animals it was 
 expended largely in the improvement of physical 
 structure as a means of ameliorating the conditions 
 of environment. In man it lies at the root of all 
 efforts toward improvement and progress in every 
 department of human activity. It is, in short, that 
 constant, impulsive force or energy which renders 
 every normal human being unsatisfied with present 
 conditions. Its absence in any field of human en- 
 deavor leads to stagnation, arrested development, 
 senile conservatism, and consequent atrophy. It 
 is the impulse that leads every man to accumulate 
 the means, not only to better his own condition, 
 but to give his children greater advantages than he 
 himself possessed. Abnormally developed, it leads 
 to hoarding useless wealth without reference to pos- 
 terity. It is the impulse that leads the civilized 
 municipality, state, or nation to establish educa- 
 tional institutions for the benefit of posterity.^ It 
 is the impulse that leads to legislation for the 
 encouragement of enterprise and for the gradual 
 improvement of moral and social conditions. Its
 
 1 64 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 f abnormal development breeds those impractical re- 
 , formers who, forgetting that the salient evils of 
 society are the expressions of the defects of com- 
 mon humanity as it exists for the time being, seek 
 to enforce their peculiar notions of morality by leg- 
 .. islation. It is the impulse that leads the enlight- 
 ened nations of the earth to expand the area of 
 Christian civilization, and to extend to other less 
 favored peoples the blessings of good government. 
 In a word, it lies at the root of all missionary effort, 
 whether of individuals, of societies, or of nations. 
 
 Without further illustration it will readily be seen 
 that this instinct may also be appropriately desig- 
 nated as the altrtiistic instinct ; for its every normal 
 manifestation is for the benefit of others, especially for 
 future generations. 
 
 It is the concomitant of the instinct of self-preser- 
 vation ; but that they are not identical is evidenced 
 by the fact that one may be manifested to the exclu- 
 sion of the other. Thus, some insects end their lives 
 with the act of reproduction ; while some fishes will 
 devour their own offspring to satisfy their hunger if 
 not prevented by their mates. Some men and wo- 
 men will starve themselves for the sake of giving 
 their children an education and a start in life superior 
 to their own ; while others will starve their children 
 for the sake of hoarding money for the gratification 
 of their own wants and appetence. In a word, the 
 instinct of self-preservation is just what its designa- 
 tion indicates, and nothing more. It is conserva- 
 tive, not progressive ; it is preservative, not creative ; 
 it is selfish, not altruistic. Normally the two in- 
 stincts harmonize with beneficent results, for they
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 165 
 
 supplement and balance each other; but under 
 abnormal conditions one may predominate to the 
 exclusion of the other. 
 
 In the mean time philosophers and scientists have, 
 from time immemorial, conspired to overload the in- 
 stinct of self-preservation with burdens that do not 
 belong to it. Thus, it is a common observation that 
 all human actions, in their last analysis, are prompted 
 by pure selfishness, the substratum of which is the 
 instinct of self-preservation. By a subtle process 
 of reasoning they have sought to refer to that instinct 
 the care of the parent for the child, the love of 
 husbands and wives, the love of the patriot for his 
 country, the love of the philanthropist for humanity, 
 the love of humanity for God. In short, they have 
 sought to eliminate every virtue from the human 
 soul, or to degrade it to the dismal level of sordid 
 selfishness. Even Christian philosophers have some- 
 times been misled by the plausible character of the 
 reasoning, and some have adopted it on the score 
 of its primal " simplicity." They have even sought 
 to show forth the wisdom of God in thus being able 
 to convert the most inherently selfish instinct into an 
 instrument for the promotion of the purest altruism. 
 It is a " simple" proposition, it is true, but to attempt 
 to demonstrate its truth logically involves a strain that 
 reason itself is not able to endure. One would sup-r 
 pose from such reasoning that God was limited in his 
 supply of instincts, since one is made to subserve so 
 many antagonistic purposes. Besides, if it is true 
 that what we call altruism is but selfishness in another 
 form, it is still selfishness and not altruism. There- 
 fore altruism does not exist. The same is true of all
 
 1 66 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 other so-called virtues, according to their reasoning. 
 Therefore virtue does not exist ; and all the so-called 
 virtues of the human soul are reduced, in their ulti- 
 mate analysis, to the level of that instinct that causes 
 a cornered rat to fight for its life. 
 
 This is a rough but truthful way of stating the 
 ultimate conclusion of those philosophers who hold 
 that the one instinct of self-preservation is sufficient 
 to account for all the phenomena of organic and 
 mental and moral evolution. Mr. Herbert Spencer 
 is, perhaps, the most illustrious example. This 
 great philosopher labors through many pages of 
 subtle analysis to the conclusion that " every altruistic 
 feeling needs the corresponding egoistic feeling as 
 an indispensable factor." 1 I do not quote this pas- 
 sage for the purpose of controverting his premises 
 or this specific conclusion ; for it is but another way 
 of saying that benevolent actions are productive of 
 pleasurable emotions in the mind of the benefactor. 
 Nobody can, or will, dispute that proposition ; for it is 
 but a specific statement of a great truth, namely, that 
 to the normally constituted human being it is more 
 pleasurable to do right than it is to do wrong. Hu- 
 manity would be in a pitiable condition if the oppo- 
 site were true ; that is, if every virtuous action were 
 productive of painful instead of pleasurable emo- 
 tions. Doubtless many of them are ; but that is 
 merely incidental to the process of evolutionary de- 
 velopment, and not a general law. The law is that 
 the normal human being derives more pleasure from 
 doing right than he does from doing wrong. This 
 being true, while it tends to confirm Mr. Spencer's 
 
 1 Principles of Psychology, vol. ii. 2, part be., p. 616 (Corollaries.)
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 1 67 
 
 specific conclusion above quoted, it completely dis- 
 proves his general conclusion, which is that all pro- 
 gressive development, mental, social, moral, and 
 altruistic, is brought about by natural selection. In 
 the chapter above quoted from, he distinctly says that 
 " the altruistic sentiments adjust themselves to the 
 modes of conduct that are permanently beneficial." 1 
 This, of course, is natural selection, pure and simple; 
 besides being a reduction, in specific terms, of the 
 highest and purest altruism to a purely utilitarian 
 basis. 
 
 Now, no one will deny the proposition that the 
 greatest pleasure that any sentient being can expe- 
 rience arises from the performance of those acts 
 which are prompted by, or are in harmony with, the 
 natural instincts. Moreover, the pleasure experi- 
 enced is directly proportioned to the strength of the 
 instinct. It needs no argument to sustain these 
 propositions. 
 
 If therefore it is true, as Mr. Spencer holds, that 
 the altruistic acts of highly developed human beings 
 are the most pleasurable that they can experience, it 
 follows that those acts are prompted by, or are in 
 harmony with, the strongest instinct with which 
 sentient creatures are endowed, not excepting the 
 instinct of self-preservation. But this conclusion is 
 the exact opposite of that to which Mr. Spencer's 
 premises lead. His theory, being based upon the 
 principle of natural selection, is that altruism is de- 
 veloped, not in harmony with any natural instinct, 
 but by an intelligent adjustment to such modes ot 
 conduct as have been found to be "permanently 
 
 1 Op. cit. p. 618 etseg.
 
 168 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 beneficial." This, of course, is brought about in 
 defiance of the natural, selfish instincts, including 
 that of self-preservation; otherwise it must be by 
 some sort of transformation of the inherently selfish 
 instincts into purely unselfish emotions. This can 
 be done only by a process of logical legerdemain, 
 and in utter disregard of the plainest facts of organic 
 and mental evolution. 
 
 I have before spoken of the alleged "simplicity" 
 of the theory that the selfish instincts are thus trans- 
 formed ; but it is difficult to see how it can be held 
 to be simple except in the statement of the propo- 
 sition, since it involves a palpable contradiction in 
 terms and a logical difficulty that is absolutely in- 
 surmountable. The proverbial simplicity of nature's 
 laws does not involve contradictions, either in fact 
 or in logic; and the twin theories that altruism 
 originates in the purely selfish instincts, and that 
 altruism is, in fact, pure selfishness, mitigated only 
 by the incidental circumstance that it benefits some- 
 body else, is a contradiction as gross and palpable 
 as ever entered into the philosophy of materialism. 
 They properly belong, however, to that system of 
 philosophy which seeks to eliminate intelligence 
 from the universe as a causative agency, and to 
 relegate everything to chance or natural selection. 
 
 I have already shown that Darwin's theory of 
 natural selection is incomplete and inadequate to 
 explain all the facts of organic evolution. The 
 same remarks apply to mental and moral evolution, 
 the evolution of civilization. That is to say, 
 natural selection is an incidental factor in the pro- 
 cess; but it is inadequate as an explanation of the
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. l6g 
 
 whole process, because it is not a constant force 
 tending always in the one direction. Such a force, 
 constant and ever progressive, we find in the evo- 
 lution of animal life, and it has been named "appe- 
 tency." But that instinct obviously warrants a 
 broader generalization, which, in turn, suggests the 
 necessity for a new name. I have ventured to call it 
 the "evolutionary instinct." But even this does not 
 express all of its potentialities. It may be de- 
 scribed, however, in general terms, by saying that it 
 is the instinct that impels all sentient creatures to the 
 performance of acts which inure to the benefit of the 
 species and of future generations. 
 
 This, of course, includes the act of reproduction; 
 for that pertains exclusively to future generations. 
 It includes the care of the young, for the same 
 reason. It includes those impulses which result in 
 the progressive development of the physical struc- 
 ture, and which evolutionists have denominated 
 "appetency," for they also inure to the benefit of 
 the species and of future generations. 
 
 Here it must be remarked of these three primordial 
 instincts or impulses : 
 
 First, that the instinct of reproduction in animals 
 is independent of the instinct of self-preservation ; 
 and in the human race the two instincts are often in 
 direct antagonism, as in cases of over-population. 
 
 Secondly, that the impulse which leads to the 
 care of the young is also independent of the instinct 
 of self-preservation; and is often in antagonism to 
 it, as in cases where the parent sacrifices her own 
 life for the preservation of her offspring. 
 
 A corollary of these propositions is that the
 
 1 70 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 primordial instinct which cares for the welfare of 
 the species and of future generations is normally 
 stronger than the instinct of self-preservation. 
 
 And this is primordial altruism, into which the 
 element of selfishness as such does not enter. 
 
 Thirdly, it must be here remarked that the inhe- 
 rent power which developed and improved the 
 physical structures of all sentient creatures was the 
 creative energy of organic evolution, -without which 
 "there was not anything made that was made." 
 
 The reader will now perceive the adumbration of 
 a great truth, which, as thus far developed, may be 
 i formulated as follows: 
 
 If The primordial cell was endowed, ab initio^ with 
 ( instincts which, in their normal interrelated activi- 
 i ties, constitute a constant energy that is both pro- 
 gressive and conservative, creative and preservative^ 
 self -regard ing and altruistic. Being primordial in' 
 , stincts, they are the heritage of all sentient creatures, 
 ! and hence we may expect to witness their ultimate 
 , development in man. 
 
 And this is precisely what we do find in man, 
 i individually and collectively. We find that he still 
 retains the instinct of self-preservation, with all the 
 selfishness that its abnormal development implies, 
 I all too frequently manifested in his character, indi- 
 vidual and national. We also find the altruistic 
 instinct retained and developed, broadened and 
 \ ever broadening, elevated and ever reaching into 
 higher realms. And we also find, by an analysis 
 that any one can make for himself, that man's whole 
 character, in all the relations of his life, whether he 
 is considered as an individual, a husband or a father,
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. I /I 
 
 a neighbor or a citizen, a moral or a religious being, 
 is determined by the relative development and 
 dominance of the two instincts. 
 
 It might be inferred from these remarks that the 
 two are incompatible, since they are so often in 
 antagonism. But, as in natural selection, this is an 
 incident and not a law. They are both necessary, 
 and when harmoniously developed and balanced, they 
 are never in antagonism. The latter is incidental 
 to the state of transition from the animal to man, 
 from primitive savagery to civilization. 
 
 It is the mental phenomena incident to this 
 transitory state that give rise to so much subtle 
 analysis and sophistication on the part of those 
 philosophers and scientists who examine monads 
 and morals with the same microscope. These are 
 the philosophers who find in the soul of man noth- 
 ing but selfishness, no basis of human integrity but 
 in the instinct of self-preservation, no virtue but in 
 lack of opportunity, no altruism but in some form 
 of self-indulgence, no religion but in fear of future 
 punishment. 
 
 Nevertheless, the altruistic acts of civilized beings 
 predominate. Every family of children is a living | 
 attestation of this truth. Every schoolhouse, church, 
 and eleemosynary institution is a monumental evi- 
 dence of it. Every mission, foreign or domestic, f 
 proclaims it. Every legislative act for the benefit 
 of future generations is an expression of national 
 altruism. This list might be indefinitely extended 
 without including a tithe of the acts that are daily 
 and hourly being performed by millions of self-^ 
 sacrificing men and women whose only reward or
 
 \T 2 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 hope of reward is the consciousness that their toil 
 will benefit others. 
 
 I do not underestimate the element of self-regard 
 that may enter into many of the acts which inure to 
 the benefit of future generations. The two impulses, 
 when harmoniously developed, as they are in every 
 normal man and woman, are concomitants; for, 
 obviously, every one must preserve his own life if 
 he would benefit others. But what I do say is that 
 when the balance is struck between those acts which 
 are performed under the impulses derived from the 
 instinct of self-preservation and those which are 
 prompted by the altruistic instinct, an overwhelm- 
 ing preponderance will be found on the side of 
 altruism. 
 
 The myriad little acts, for the benefit of others, 
 which constitute the daily life of all mothers and 
 fathers, neighbors and friends, largely swell the 
 balance which must be credited on the side of in- 
 stinctive altruism. They are unheralded, unnoted, 
 and unrecorded, save in the book of the " Recording 
 Angel ; " but they are often the deeds of heroes and 
 of martyrs. The unobservant world takes no note 
 of them ; for its attention is constantly solicited to 
 the daily record of crimes. Besides, "the evil that 
 men do lives after them ; the good is oft interred 
 with their bones." It is not strange, therefore, that 
 the superficial observer is unconsciously led to the 
 belief that selfishness, with its train of manifold 
 evils, is the rule and not the exception; or that even 
 great philosophers should come to regard all altruistic 
 feeling as but a sublimated form of selfishness. We 
 should not, therefore, judge the busy world too 
 
 P <Tt-_y-| x UJv3
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 1/3 
 
 harshly for its lack of close observation, or its want 
 of analytical power. Nor should we condemn the 
 philosopher for the conclusions which he derives 
 from a close analysis of psychological phenomena; 
 for it is axiomatic with the old psychologists, that 
 each student of the science must be guided, in the 
 solution of problems, largely by the recognized states 
 of his own inner consciousness. 1 
 
 I think that it can safely be said that the fore- 
 going facts constitute presumptive evidence that 
 there exists in all sentient creatures, from the 
 moneron to man, an instinct that can be appro- 
 priately designated by no name less comprehensive 
 than that of the "evolutionary instinct;" that in its 
 moral aspects it must be called the "altruistic in- 
 stinct;" and that it is distinct and separable from 
 the instinct of self-preservation. If conclusive 
 evidence is wanting, it is found in the fact that, 
 when the two instincts are in the balance, the altru- 
 istic instinct normally prevails. This is evidenced 
 in a thousand ways, some of which I have already 
 mentioned. It is demonstrably proven by the broad 
 fact that progress is being made in civilization, and 
 that the greatest progress is made among those 
 nations whose form of government is the most 
 
 1 That " inner consciousness " is an unsafe guide, is evidenced by 
 the fact that under the old system (or want of system) there were as 
 many psychologies, each contradictory of the others, as there were 
 psychologists of variant idiosyncrasies. The fact that the latter were 
 responsible for each one's " recognized states of his own inner con- 
 sciousness " accounts for the chaotic condition of the old psychology. 
 Obviously this arose from the lack of a valid working hypothesis, 
 applicable alike to all states of consciousness, and adequate to the 
 explication of all psychological phenomena.
 
 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 altruistic, whose laws accord the fullest recognition 
 of the rights of the people. It is among the people 
 of such nations that the dominance of the altruistic 
 instinct over that of self-preservation is most fre- 
 quently made manifest. In them it is manifested in 
 the habitual disregard of danger to self when the 
 lives of others are at stake, in the firemen who risk 
 and often sacrifice their lives in rescuing women 
 and children from the flames, in the pilot who 
 perishes at the wheel while steering a burning pas- 
 senger-laden boat to the shore, in the soldier who 
 without conscription offers his life to his country 
 and humanity, in the sailors who instinctively ^seat 
 all the passengers of a sinking ship in the lifeboats 
 before taking thought for their own safety. 
 
 It is true that a high degree of national altruism 
 must be attained before such deeds become habitual, 
 instinctive, and characteristic of a people. But that 
 such nations exist is current history. It is also true 
 that there are nations, calling themselves civilized, 
 that have not yet risen to that moral altitude, or 
 have fallen below it, whose sailors instinctively 
 seize the lifeboats of a sinking ship and brain the 
 women and children who seek to share their safety. 
 
 Nevertheless, the world is tending toward the 
 higher altruism, national and individual. There 
 may be cases of arrested development, atavism, 
 degeneracy, and national decadence ; and one of the 
 surest evidences of it is the habitual disregard of the 
 rights of women and children, of which the savage 
 brutality above mentioned is merely the efflorescence. 
 Fortunately, however, sterility and degeneration are 
 concomitants with a causal connection; and racial
 
 THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 1 75 
 
 extinction, therefore, is but a question of time. \ 
 Atavism, with all that the name implies, antecedent 
 and consequent, is an incident of evolutionary de- 
 velopment, as well of civilization as of organic life; 
 but natural selection, or survival of the fittest, 
 gradually eliminates all elements of antagonism 
 to that primordial energy which is the cause of all 
 evolution. And as that energy is as constant and 
 as potent in the evolution of civilization as it was 
 in the primordial cell, we may rest assured that 
 neither the atavism of one race nor the primitive 
 savagery of another can arrest the onward and 
 upward progress of humanity toward universal 
 altruism. 
 
 It will now be seen that in making the foregoing 
 remarks I have not antagonized the central idea of 
 the most rigidly scientific evolutionist; for if there 
 is any one thing that he labors to establish that is 
 more vital to his hypothesis than any other, it is 
 that the potentialities of manhood reside in the primor- 
 dial cell. And this is just what I have been labor- 
 ing to prove, and I submit that I have given better 
 reasons for that belief than he has; for by showing 
 that altruism is the dominant characteristic of all 
 normal sentient beings, I have correlated the regnant 
 instinct of the lowest unicellular organism with the 
 highest attributes of an ideally perfect manhood. 
 
 Nor have I antagonized the central idea of Chris- 
 tian theism as it was voiced by the oldest prophets; 
 for if there is any one doctrine that is more vital to 
 Christianity than another, it is that man was made 
 in the image of God. And this, I submit, could not 
 be true if altruism were not the regnant instinct of
 
 176 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the human soul, or if its universality were not the 
 ultimate goal of human progress. 
 
 And thus it happens that the central tenet of each 
 of two supposedly antagonistic philosophies is con- 
 firmed and illustrated by one fundamental truth. 
 
 This of itself is profoundly significant; for the 
 fact that a hypothesis is capable of harmonizing 
 two supposedly antagonistic philosophies is a strong 
 argument for its truth. Nor is this all. The most 
 significant part of it is that this one instinct not 
 only constitutes the potential energy which lies at 
 the bottom of all physical development from the 
 moneron to man; but it is the agency of man's 
 mental, moral, and spiritual development from sav- 
 agery to civilization, and constitutes the promise 
 and potency of universal altruism.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 EVOLUTION OF THE TWO INSTINCTS IN THE 
 INDIVIDUAL. 
 
 Recapitulation. Man's Environment of a Moral, Social, and Spirit- 
 ual Nature. Same Process of Development with Men as with 
 Animals. Brain Mind reasons out a Line of Conduct. Habit 
 converts it into a Permanent Characteristic. It is then an 
 Attribute of the Subjective Mind, i.e. Instinctive. It is then 
 Inheritable. The Warfare between Reason and Passion. Not 
 for the Suppression of Passional Emotions, but for their Regula- 
 tion. Reason the Judicial Tribunal. The Sum of its Decisions 
 constitutes the Character of the Individual. As befits its Judi- 
 cial Character, the Reasoning Mind is Emotionless. Neverthe- 
 less it ministers to Self-interest. It decides upon what is Best 
 for the Individual. The Brain the Novum Organum of Animal 
 Intelligence. Suggestion the Executive Agency of the Judicial 
 Tribunal. It is the Power which invests Man with Dominion 
 over all Animate Nature, including Himself. Intellectual Facul- 
 ties of Subjective Mind rarely appear above the Surface. Ex- 
 ceptions in Genius. Emotions, however, constantly in Evidence. 
 Synchronism of the Two Minds. Facts demonstrating Duality 
 of Mind. Hypnotism, Somnambulism, etc. Objective Mind 
 not controlled by Suggestion. Subjective Mind is so controlled 
 except in Matters of Conscience. Man not handicapped by a 
 Preponderance of Evil in his Nature. The Strongest Instinct 
 impels to Progress. Reason is on the Side of Right. A Cru- 
 cial Question. Why does the Mortal Mind dominate the Im- 
 mortal Mind in this Life? The Question answered. The 
 Immortal, or Subjective, Mind was destined for a Higher Plane 
 of Ultimate Existence. Meantime Subjective Faculties must 
 develop on this Plane. Reason the Agency. Thus Man was 
 made a Free Moral Agent 
 
 I HAVE now shown that all the emotions of the 
 soul of man have their origin in two correlative 
 instincts, namely; the instinct of self-preservation, 
 and the evolutionary, or altruistic, instinct. I have 
 
 12
 
 1/8 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 pointed out the fact that under normal conditions 
 the two are harmoniously interrelated, but that 
 under abnormal conditions either faculty may obtain 
 undue ascendancy, even to the total submergence of 
 the other. 
 
 I have shown that, normally, the instinct of self- 
 preservation is conservative and preservative ; that it 
 is promotive of a due regard for existing conditions, 
 personal safety, and private rights ; but that, abnor- 
 mally developed, it leads to pure selfishness and a 
 total disregard of the rights of others. 
 
 On the other hand, the evolutionary instinct, 
 normally developed, is creative, progressive, and 
 altruistic, altruism predominating. Abnormal de- 
 velopment leads to a chronic dissatisfaction with 
 existing institutions and to imbecile schemes for 
 "reforming them; to hysterical sympathy for crimi- 
 nals whose crimes are of exceptional atrocity; to 
 suicide for the purpose of enabling one's family to 
 realize on his life insurance; in short, to unreason- 
 ing and unrestrained excitation of the sympathetic 
 emotions. 
 
 I have shown that between the extremes of self- 
 isjiness and jiltruism there exists a wide battlefield 
 for the contending emotions ; that the conflict be- 
 tween them is incident to the transitional stage of 
 development from primitive savagery to an ideal 
 civilization. It is the great body of mental phe- 
 nomena incident to this transitional stage that fur- 
 nishes forth the pttce de resistance for all the feasts 
 of reason with which philosophers and metaphysi- 
 cians have been wont to regale mankind. I shall 
 not enter that field at present except for the purpose
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 179 
 
 of a brief inquiry with especial reference to the in- 
 fluence of the brain mind, or objective mind, upon 
 the development and regulation of the two instincts 
 which we have been considering. 
 
 I have already endeavored to show that the brain is 
 sidpJy-_a highly specialized physicaLorgan, especially 
 adapted jx^the exigencies of a physical environment, 
 and that it was developed in response to the growing 
 necessities of animal life, just as, under other condi- 
 tions, weapons of offensive and defensive warfare were 
 developed. I have shown that the brain performed 
 its functions^ largely by the process of developing 
 secondary instincts ; that it was constantly stimulated 
 to increased efficiency by contact with ever-increas- 
 ing complexities of constantly changing environ- 
 mental conditions ; and that it thus became in man 
 the^dominating factor in the dual mental organism. 
 I shall now attempt to show that man's mental, 
 moral, spiritual, and social development is brought 
 about by precisely the same agencies, operating by 
 the same processes that developed animal intelligence 
 after the brain became a factor in mental evolution. 
 There are differences, of course ; but they are of 
 degree, proportion, and subject-matter. That is to 
 say, there is a difference of degree in the development 
 of the objective mind, there is a difference in the 
 proportional development of the two minds, and 
 there is a difference in subject-matter in that the 
 environmental conditions, which stimulate the growth 
 and progressive development of man, are largely of 
 a moral, intellectual, and spiritual nature. But the 
 processes are fundamentally identical. 
 
 Thus, when an animal is confronted by a new en-
 
 180 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 vironment, involving new problems of subsistence 
 and new dangers to be encountered, its inherited 
 instincts are at fault ; and hence it " acts intelligently," 
 as the naturalists say. That is, it reasons out the 
 problems presented and acts accordingly. In other 
 words, the objective, or brain, intelligence performs its 
 functions and directs aline of conduct adapted to the 
 exigencies of the case. Then, if the conditions are 
 permanent, the intelligent act becomes habitual, and 
 finally, "after being performed for several genera- 
 tions it is converted into a permanent instinct, and is 
 thereafter inherited." 
 
 When new problems are presented to man, the 
 process and the result are the same. For instance, 
 a question involving the principles of right and 
 wrong presents itself to the objective, or reasoning, 
 mind. It may be a question involving the personal 
 welfare of the individual, or it may involve his emo- 
 tional nature. It may be a question of religious duty, 
 or it may involve his obligations to his family, the 
 community in which he resides, or the state which 
 claims his allegiance. In either case there may be 
 conflicting interests, emotions, or passions to recon- 
 cile, regulate, or restrain. The untrained passions of 
 the animal or the primitive man, with correspondingly 
 feeble reasoning powers, would quickly decide in favor 
 of sensual gratification, unless restrained by an obvi- 
 ously imminent danger. But the man whose reason is 
 trained and developed may yet be beset by strong 
 emotions, passions, interests, or desires that conflict 
 with what reason prescribes as a duty to himself, to 
 humanity, or to God. Then ensues the great conflict 
 of which Paul complains, " the law in his members
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. l8l 
 
 warring against the law of his mind." Every normal 
 man is called upon to experience this warfare be- 
 tween duty and desire, between right and wrong. 
 Normally conducted, it is a conflict, not for the 
 destruction of the emotional nature of man, not for 
 the elimination of the passional element from his 
 soul, but for the regulation, elevation, and purifica- 
 tion of that element and directing it into legitimate 
 channels of normal activity. 
 
 It is the office of reason, the function of the objec- 
 tive mind, to decide the contest, and just in propor- 
 tion to the relative strength of the reasoning powers 
 as compared with that of man's selfish emotions, will 
 the decision be on the side of right as against wrong. 
 
 Reason, therefore, is the judicial tribunal of the 
 soul ; and when its decision is made in any case of 
 conflict, a course of conduct is entered upon in ac- 
 cordance with that decision. And it is^ the aggregate 
 ol these decisions that constitutes the character of the 
 individual. Whatever the course may be, when it 
 becomes habitual, and when it is persisted in for a 
 few generations, it is converted into an instinct and 
 is then inherited. In other words, another second- 
 ary instinct is thus created, which adds its quota to 
 the sum of the faculties of the subjective mind. 
 
 It must not be forgotten, in this connection, that 
 while the objective mind is cold and emotionless, as 
 becomes its judicial function, it is, and has been from 
 the beginning, identified in its judicial capacity with 
 the instincts of self-preservation and appetency, or the 
 evolutionary instinct. As we have already seen, it is 
 the source of secondary instincts alike in animals 
 and in man. That it is the source of all progress in
 
 1 82 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the sciences and the appliances of civilization, is a 
 matter of common observation. It follows that its 
 constant aim is to do the very best it can for the 
 preservation and progress of humanity. Its judgment 
 may sometimes be wrong, but that it is generally 
 right is evidenced by the giant strides which civiliza- 
 tion has made since Bacon formulated the function 
 of the brain and reduced its process of reasoning to a 
 system.- **- L~*~*^~ *T^- fr^-r^ 
 
 Nor must it be forgotten that this judicial tribunal 
 of the dual mental organism is not destitute of an 
 executive agency to enforce its decrees. That agency 
 is what is known to science as the law of suggestion. 
 The power^LLaiiggestion is the most potent mental 
 energy with which man is endowed. Its influence is 
 felt in every department of human activity. It is the 
 instrumentality of universal education. It is the 
 power that invests man with dominion over all sen- 
 tient creatures. It is. in short, the, instrumentality 
 through which the mind of reason is enabled to edu- 
 cate and discipline the soul for weal or woe in this 
 world and the world to come. 
 
 I repeat, therefore, that the objective mind, the 
 mind of which the sole function is that of inductive 
 reasoning, is the judicial tribunal the court of 
 Oyer and Terminer which hears and determines 
 all questions pertaining to the welfare of man in this 
 life. When properly cultivated, it sits in judgment 
 upon every act of our lives, regulates every emotion, 
 restrains every passion, and directs it into legitimate 
 channels. In short, it is at once the tenure by which 
 man holds his free moral agency and the power that 
 enables him to fit his soul for eternity.
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 183 
 
 But, as before remarked, an agency was necessary 
 to enforce the decrees of the tribunal of reason upon 
 the mind of the soul. This was rendered possible by 
 the limitations of the subjective faculties. This limi- 
 tation, as I have before pointed out, consists of the 
 absence of inductive power in the subjective mind. 
 It was, indeed, this limitation that rendered a brain 
 necessary as a part of tEe physical organism, and 
 under the law of appetency it wasjthis. necessity that 
 impelled its development. When the brain was de- 
 veloped, it swayed the dominant mental energy by 
 virtue of its power to reason, and its consequent 
 ability to take the initiative in those intelligent actions 
 that were rendered necessary from time to time in 
 consequence of constantly increasing complexities of 
 environment. The subjective minds of the lower 
 animals were therefore dominated by the sugges- 
 tions of their objective minds, precisely as the sub- 
 jective mind of man is now controlled. In fact, the 
 supremacy of suggestion was even more perfect, 
 theoretically at least, with animals than with men, for 
 the reason that all intelligence in animals pertains to 
 self-preservation and evolution. The objective intel- 
 ligence therefore ministered to the wants and neces- 
 sities and propensities of animal nature just the same 
 as it contributed to its safety. 
 
 But with man it is different. Questions of moral- 
 ity, ethics, and religion occupy man's attention, and 
 require the restraint or regulation of the animal pro- 
 pensities. Hence it is that the control by the power 
 of suggestion is not so easy and certain in man as it 
 is in animals. Nevertheless, the subjective mind of 
 man is limited by the same absence of inductive
 
 1 84 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 powers, and the law of suggestion prevails. Hence 
 the frequent contests for supremacy between the 
 two minds, the mind of reason and the mind of 
 emotion, the mind of judgment and the mind of 
 passjon. 
 
 It may be here remarked that this contest has been 
 
 experienced by every normal man and every normal 
 
 woman of mature years. It is the one phenomenal 
 
 manifestation of duality of mind that is experienced, 
 
 under normal conditions, by everybody. The other 
 
 faculties of the subjective mind are less in evidence. 
 
 The purely intellectual faculties, for instance, rarely 
 
 appear above the threshold of normal consciousness. 
 
 'They sometimes appear in cases of genius; but as 
 
 1 Lombroso, 1 more clearly than any one else, has 
 
 pointed out, genius itself is intensely abnormal. The 
 
 ' same may be said of the faculties of telepathy and 
 
 j telekinesis, modified only by the character of the 
 
 manifestations and the nature of the abnormality. 
 
 But the emotions are constantly near the surface, 
 so much so, indeed, that some of those who adhere 
 to the dual hypothesis are inclined to the opinion 
 that the objective mind itself is endowed with emo- 
 tional faculties. This, however, is an error that will 
 be made obvious by a moment's consideration of the 
 salient facts. 
 
 Thus, to locate the emotions in the reasoning mind 
 would be to handicap it with that which would limit 
 if it did not destroy its " judicial independence." 
 This, on the principle_oJL-adaptation of function to 
 .purpose, which prevails in all nature, would be a 
 sufficient reason for keeping the judicial mind free 
 
 1 See " The Man of Genius."
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 185 
 
 from the influence of selfish emotions. This, how- 
 ever, is merely a reason why the emotions should not 
 be located in the reasoning mind. But it should 
 not be forgotten that, jn all of nature's laws, that 
 .which should not be is not, and that which should 
 be is. We may rest assured, therefore, on a priori 
 grounds, that nature's mental tribunal, which was 
 so obviously instituted for the purpose of providing 
 a guide and a mentor for the body and the soul in 
 their journey through the dangers and temptations 
 of earthly existence, is not handicapped by faculties 
 that would preclude the possibility of a dispassionate 
 performance of its functions. 
 
 The facts bearing upon the question are many, 
 prominent among which are these : The crucial fact 
 is that the emotional faculties antedated the brain 
 by many millions of years ; and since no member of 
 the old school of psychology has been able to tell us 
 when or by what process they were transferred to 
 the new organ, we are justified in assuming, on a 
 priori grounds, that the transfer has never been 
 made. Logically, therefore, we have a right to hold 
 that position until the contrary has been demon- 
 strated; or at least until such a posteriori reasons 
 are advanced as will show the position to be unten- 
 able. But it happens that the latter all conspire to 
 sustain the position. For instance, the warring of 
 the parts, from the agonies of which St. Paul prayed 
 to be delivered, or the conflict between reason 
 and passion of which we have already spoken, pre- 
 sents indubitable evidence that two distinct mental 
 organisms, actuated by antagonistic motives, are con-, 
 testing for supremacy.
 
 1 86 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 Again, the facts of suggestion demonstrate the 
 principle of duality. Thus, normally the brain mind, 
 or objective mind, controls the subjective mind, in- 
 
 f eluding the emotions, just in proportion to the com- 
 parative development of the two. But when the 
 
 1 action of the brain is inhibited, as in hypnotism, the 
 emotions can be controlled by the suggestions of 
 ^another. And this may be done even against reason, 
 experience, or the evidences of the senses. The 
 only exception to this rule is when the suggestions 
 conflict with conscience. Of this more will be said 
 hereinafter. Now, the fact that the emotions can be 
 controlled by suggestion under any circumstances 
 so far as to nullify the facts of experience, is indu- 
 bitable evidence that they belong to the subjective 
 mind. And when to this is added the correlative 
 fact that the reasoning, or objective, mind is not and 
 cannot be so controlled ; but that, on the contrary, 
 it normally has the power to control the subjective 
 mind by suggestion, we have an overwhelming array 
 of evidence that the two minds are distinct organisms, 
 rjpssessing independent powers, operating^by _di_ verse 
 methods and differentiated by distinctive limitations. 
 
 i' r It will now be seen that in the great conflict be- 
 
 . tween evil and good, in the great struggle between 
 right and wrong, man is not handicapped by a 
 preponderance of evil in his nature. On the con- 
 
 1 trary, the strongest instinct of his soul impels him 
 
 ! forward in the path of progress toward a realization 
 of the highest ideals of the Master, and reason is on 
 
 vthe side of right. 
 
 In this connection it has often been asked why 
 it is that the subjective mind the mind of the
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. l8/ 
 
 immortal soul is subordinated to the mind that 
 perishes ; why it is that it is limited in its reasoning 
 powers, why it is dominated and constantly con- 
 trolled by the power of suggestion. These are perti- 
 nent and far-reaching questions; and if they could 
 not be answered clearly and definitely, and the 
 methods of control and the processes of training and 
 development clearly pointed out, the hypothesis would 
 be unworthy of a moment's serious consideration. 
 
 In attempting a reply to these questions we must 
 premise that, the foundation having been laid by 
 the facts and arguments in the foregoing chapters, 
 what follows will be largely in the nature of a state- 
 ment of conclusions. 
 
 In the first place, it must be remarked that, since 
 God's method of creation is by a process of progres- 
 sive development in accordance with an immutable 
 law, and since it is evident that man is the final 
 goal of organic evolution, it follows that the poten- 
 tialities of manhood were necessarily inherent in his 
 primordial ancestry. That is to say, every essential 
 faculty of the subjective mind of man existed, incho- 
 ate and potential, in the mind of the lowest unicellu- 
 lar organism ; and after the brain was evolved, every 
 faculty, objective and subjective, that man possesses 
 thus existed in all his ancestry that were endowed 
 with brain faculties. No evolutionist will gainsay 
 this proposition ; for it is the essential implication 
 of the evolutionary hypothesis. 
 
 It follows that all the animal passions and pro- 
 pensities are the inalienable hereditaments of man. 
 After what has been said in preceding chapters, how- 
 ever, the statement will not seem so shocking as the
 
 1 88 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 words might seem to indicate ; for it is now evident 
 that what we have been in the habit of stigmatizing 
 as the "lowest instincts" of animals is primordial 
 altruism ; and that these same instincts, when normally 
 developed, refined, purified, elevated, and directed by 
 an enlightened conscience into legitimate channels in 
 man, are converted into the noblest impulses, and 
 are promotive of the highest and purest altruistic 
 devotion of which the souls of men are capable. 
 Man need not, therefore, be ashamed of the mental 
 attributes of his humble ancestors, since his noblest 
 faculties were inherited from them, and the quality, 
 character, and value of the heritage depend upon 
 his own volition, depend upon the use he makes 
 of it. The parable of the talents is directly in point; 
 and it is one of the finest illustrations of the wisdom 
 of the Master that have been handed down to us. 
 
 Here, then, we have two facts to correlate. The 
 first is the fact that the faculties possessed by 
 man existed, inchoate, in the lower animals. The 
 second is that the subjective mind of each is limited 
 .by the law of suggestion; or, what is an equivalent 
 statement, it is incapable of inductive reasonin g. 
 
 K Now, the first explanation that the inquirer will 
 
 i demand is, Why is the subjective mind thus limited 
 in its powers? To that question only a provisional 
 
 1 answer can be made in this immediate connection ; 
 namely, that it appears to be because the subjective 
 
 I mind or entity was designed for a higher ultimate 
 destiny; and hence only such faculties were given to 
 it as would be useful in that higher plane of exist- 
 ence. Hence inductive powers were not given to it, 
 
 [/ for the reason that such a faculty would be useless
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 189 
 
 to a being who is endowed with the power of intuitive ^ 
 perception of the laws of its being, or, in other words, 
 of all essential truth pertaining to its state of exist- . 
 ence. I have, however, touched upon this topic in ' 
 earlier chapters of this book, and have treated it more 
 fully elsewhere. 1 It is reiterated here only for the 
 purpose of making the present statement complete. 
 
 Be the reasons what they may, the facts remain as 
 stated, namely, (i) that man inherited all his facul- 
 jies, passions, and propensities from the lower animals ; - 
 and (2) that the subjective mind is, and always has 
 been, controlled by the suggestions of the objective 
 mind. 
 
 Now, this control was easy and without friction so 
 long as the whole energies of the dual mind were 
 absorbed in providing for the necessities and avoiding 
 the dangers incident to a purely animal existence. 
 But when man appeared, and when, in the process 
 of development, he emerged from a state of primitive 
 savagery, he gradually became conscious of the fact 
 that his environment was no longer purely physical. 
 In other words, he gradually became conscious of 
 his status as a moral being, having duties to perform 
 toward his fellow-men. With that came a sense of 
 dependence upon some higher power, together with 
 a sense of duty or obligation to that higher power. 
 
 In short, the time came when it was necessary to 
 restrain and control the animal passions and propen-1 
 sities in deference to the rights of others. And it 
 was then that the wisdom of investing the objective ' 
 mind with the power to control those passions and to , 
 
 1 For a full discussion of the subject, see " A Scientific Demon- 
 stration of the Future Life."
 
 190 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 
 
 v direct their exercise and development became mani- 
 fest. In other words, it was then that the utility of 
 
 * the law of suggestion was demonstrated ; for that 
 is the law by virtue of which reason became normally 
 the dominating power of the duplex mental organ- 
 ism. That is the law under the provisions of which 
 mortal man was made a free moral agent ; for it 
 invests him with full power to train his soul for weal 
 or woe for this world and the world to come. 
 
 The process by which this training is accomplished 
 is precisely the same in man as secondary instincts 
 were acquired by the lower animals after a brain had 
 been evolved and become a part of the mental equip- 
 ment of sentient creatures. That is to say, the in- 
 stincts of self-preservation and appetency together 
 constitute the primary impulse which actuates man 
 substantially as it did the lower animals. The objec- 
 tive mind, now as then, reasons out the problems of 
 life as they are presented, and decides upon the best 
 course to pursue; and the subjective mind accepts 
 the suggestion, acts upon it, and in due time the 
 course of conduct becomes habitual, then instinctive 
 and inheritable. Thus, the objective mind is purely 
 
 1 utilitarian ; and being devoid of emotion, it coldly 
 reasons out the problems as they are presented, but 
 
 always with an eye single to the question of benefit 
 to the individual or the species. The subjective 
 
 : mind, on_the^_pther hand, accepts the utilitarian 
 suggestion, and when the course of conduct once 
 becomes instinctive, or, in other words, firmly fixed 
 
 | in the subjective mind, the impulse to carry it out is 
 converted into an emotion, or a moral principle, or 
 
 , both, according to the nature of the action.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 EVOLUTION OF THE TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 
 
 The same Laws of Development prevail in States as in Individuals. 
 
 All Aggregations have their Origin in Intelligent Appreciation 
 of the Necessity for Mutual Protection. Reason teaches Mutual 
 Helpfulness and Forbearance. Churches, Schools, and Benevo- 
 lent Institutions follow in their Order. Altruism is intelligently 
 practised. Habit converts it into an Instinctive Emotion. In 
 due Time Patriotism becomes Instinctive. It is developed in 
 Proportion to Beneficence of Institutions. Foreign War the 
 Supreme Test of Patriotism. Capable of Indefinite Expansion. 
 Its Origin in Parental Instinct. May be expanded so as to em- 
 brace all Humanity. Its Highest Manifestations in the most 
 Progressive Nations. In such Nations it approaches Universal 
 Altruism. It becomes more than mere Love of Country. It 
 becomes the Missionary Agent of Christian Civilization. Trade 
 and Commerce its Promoters. The Incentive to all Effort and 
 all Progress. It is God's Method of inciting Men to Action. 
 Contrast with the " Gentle Savage," who neither works nor fights. 
 
 Hunger as an Intellectual Stimulant alike with Animals and 
 Men. Nations must be Prosperous before they can be Altru- 
 istic. God's Bounty from a Full Store. Accumulations of 
 Wealth cannot properly be discouraged, yet God requires an 
 Accounting. 
 
 ONLY a few words will be required to show, in 
 outline, that the principles we have been con- 
 sidering apply with the same force and pertinency 
 to aggregated humanity, to tribes, communities, 
 states, and nations. 
 
 Thus, when states are formed by an aggregation 
 of communities, it is the result of a process of rea- 
 soning by which the conclusion is reached that the
 
 192 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 interests of each and all will be best subserved by a 
 union of forces, financial and military. That is to 
 say, the principle of self-preservation enters into the 
 transaction in its incipiency; the higher emotions 
 having little or nothing to do with it at that time 
 But reason teaches them that inasmuch as their 
 interests are identical, and mutual protection is their 
 object, they should cultivate a mutual regard, for- 
 bearance, and helpfulness. Churches, schools, col- 
 leges, and eleemosynary institutions soon follow, with 
 all that they imply; all being the outgrowth of an 
 intelligent understanding of the best interests of the 
 community or the state. In due time, however, 
 after these " intelligent actions have been performed 
 for several generations, they are converted into 
 instincts and are then inherited." The altruistic 
 instinct has become a factor in the national character, 
 and it has become an emotional impulse of supreme 
 potency. We call it " patriotism," and define the 
 word as " love of country." It is that, but in its 
 higher implications it is infinitely more ; for it com- 
 prises, not only a sentimental love of one's country, 
 prompting obedience to its laws and to acts pro- 
 motive of its welfare, but to the sacrifice of property 
 and life itself in defence of its existence, its rights, 
 and its institutions. 
 
 The patriotism of a free and enlightened people 
 is, in fact, one of the best illustrations of the har- 
 monious development of the two instincts. The self- 
 regarding element enters into it, in that protection of 
 the whole includes protection of its component parts; 
 and this applies alike to life and to property. All acts 
 having for their object a provision for the common
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 193 
 
 defence, or for the promotion of national prosperity, 
 must be set down to the credit of the self-regarding 
 instinct, although the altruistic element may enter _ 
 into many of them. But it will invariably be found 7 Q^ 
 that a free and enlightened people, after a few gener- 
 ations of autonomous government, are more strongly ( 
 moved by altruistic impulses than by those that are 
 purely self-regarding; and that those acts which \ 
 inure to the benefit of future generations far over- 
 balance the others in number and importance. It i 
 is sometimes difficult to determine when the patriotic 
 altruism of such a people ceases to be prompted 
 solely by an enlightened reason and is converted ' 
 into a national instinctive emotion. But the time 
 always comes when that question is no longer in 
 doubt; and that time is when war with a foreign 
 nation is imminent. When such a time comes, if a j 
 thousand volunteers offer their services for every one 
 that is called for, we may rest assured that patriot- ] 
 ism in that country is a national instinct, and with 
 that people altruism is the dominant national im- . 
 pulse." I mention war as a test of the instinctive 
 character of patriotism, for the reason that until the . 
 representative manhood of a nation is put to that 
 test it can never be surely known whether or not the j 
 patriotic impulse is stronger than the instinct of self- 
 preservation. If it is, we may safely conclude that 
 in that nation the two instincts have been har- I 
 moniously developed, and that altruism, or other- 
 regarding, with all its implications of progressive \ 
 development of civilization, is the dominating national 
 characteristic. 
 
 Patriotism, like every other virtue, may be mis- 
 
 , ^ '^ -; _ L-^~. t- <- ' ~ . - 
 
 .'
 
 194 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 directed ; but the fact remains that it is essentially 
 altruistic. It is, moreover, fairly representative of 
 progressive civilization, for it is capable of indefinite 
 expansion, and it keeps exact pace with the develop- 
 ment of human intelligence and national virtue. The 
 latter proposition is demonstrated by the fact that in 
 those nations which enjoy the highest degree of 
 Christian civilization, and whose governments are the 
 most altruistic, the patriotism of the people is the 
 most intense and practical in peace and potent in 
 war. 
 
 That it is capable of indefinite expansion is evi- 
 denced by the history of the world. Having its 
 origin in the parental instinct, it began with the 
 primordial cell as a primary instinct. In the process 
 of development secondary instincts were evolved, 
 resulting in gregarious habits in the more intelligent 
 animals. When man appeared and began to organ- 
 ize the basis of human society, the equivalent of 
 what we call patriotism was among the first of the 
 secondary instincts developed. It had its basis in 
 the two primordial instincts ; but its first manifesta- 
 tions were the results of an intelligent adaptation 
 to environment. This was eventually converted 
 into an instinct, and became an inheritable attribute 
 of mind. 
 
 Now, every step in the progressive development 
 of human government is taken in precisely the same 
 way. Thus, when tribes are aggregated into com- 
 munities, it is primarily the result of an intelligent 
 appreciation of the fact that self-preservation for the 
 tribe and security for future generations will be best 
 provided for by a union of forces. The same is
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 195 
 
 true of every new aggregation of interests and forces 
 by which states and nations are formed under nor- 
 mal conditions. Reason points out the path of 
 safety for present and future generations, and in- 
 culcates a policy promotive of internal harmony 
 and mutual forbearance and regard. These are 
 the suggestions of the aggregated national intelli- 
 gence. At first, however, there are conflicting 
 interests which give rise to local selfishness, and 
 thus counter suggestions are made which retard 
 the general acceptance of the situation. But in 
 due time the interests are harmonized, and the 
 advantages of union become manifest to all. The 
 natural result is a growing regard for the institutions 
 that afford protection to life and property and 
 provide for the comfort and prosperity of future 
 generations. And this is the emotion that eventu- 
 ally develops into that passionate_[ove_of_cou ntry 
 which has been designated as patriotism. The 
 suggestions~oT~ reason have been fully accepted by 
 the subjective mind. The resultant acts have been 
 performed until they have become habitual. A 
 secondary instinct has been created ; and hence- 
 forth it is a potent element in the national charac- 
 ter, and, like all other instincts and attributes of the 
 subjective mind, it is the heritage of posterity. 
 
 It seems evident, therefore, that the higher mani- 
 festations of the attribute of mind which we call 
 patriotism are much more than a mere emotional 
 sentiment of love for one's country; for the latter 
 may be inspired by the associations of childhood, 
 by the memories of parents and the companions of 
 youth, or even by the memories of the beautiful
 
 196 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 scenery of one's native land, " the orchard, the 
 meadow, the deep tangled wildwood," or any loved 
 spot which one's infancy knew. No one is exempt 
 from the emotions inspired by such fond recollec- 
 tions. But that emotion is not patriotism in the 
 higher sense of the word. It has little or nothing in 
 common with that lofty spirit of self-abnegation which 
 prompts one to sacrifice all that he has, even life 
 itself, for the preservation of the institutions of his 
 country. Such a spirit can only be inspired by an 
 intelligent appreciation of institutions that are worth 
 preserving. Hence it is that the, higher attribute of 
 mind which is called patriotism exists as a national 
 characteristic of the people of any country in exact 
 proportion to the beneficence of its institutions and 
 the ability of its people to appreciate them intelli- 
 gently. When this universal truth is considered in 
 connection with the fact that the higher patriotism 
 we have described is in itself essentially altruistic, the 
 conclusion is inevitable that the emotion possesses a 
 more profound significance than is expressed or 
 implied by the term by which it is designated. 
 
 " It is, in fact, the national or collective expression 
 
 ( or manifestation of the " evolutionary instinct," the 
 progressive principle, the constant force, the im- 
 
 t pellent energy creative, progressive, and essentially 
 altruistic that developed the organic world from 
 
 1 the moneron to man, and constitutes the motive 
 power that impels mankind onward and upward in 
 
 i the path of progressive development in every sphere 
 
 - of legitimate human activity. 
 
 If this proposition is true, there are two evidences 
 of its truth that we might reasonably expect to find:
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 1 97 
 
 First, we should be sure to find its highest manifes- 
 tation in those nations that are in the very van of 
 human progress, for there is necessarily a causal 
 connection between them. That is to say, we 
 might expect to find the people of those nations 
 whose governments most clearly and practically 
 recognize the rights of man to be the most en- 
 lightened, enterprising, and progressive in peace, 
 and in war the bravest and the most devoted and 
 self-sacrificing. 
 
 Secondly, we should have a right to expect that $* ^ 
 eventually this same altruistic emotion would refuse ^ i<- 
 to be circumscribed by the limitations of race, color, i 
 or geographical boundaries; and that, on occasion,, 
 we should find the people of great nations moved 
 by one common altruistic impulse to right the wrongs' 
 of suffering humanity in other lands than their own. <_ 
 
 The impulse, it is true, might be misdirected. All 
 missionary effort is liable to be misdirected and 
 carried forward on impracticable lines. I am not 
 arguing that question in reference to any real or 
 supposable case. The point is that the impulse is 
 real, that it is altruistic in its very essence, that its 
 existence as an individual or a national characteristic 
 reaches out toward universal altruism and__points to 
 that goal as the manifest destiny of humanity. 
 
 Again, it may be said that selfishness is the main- 
 spring of missionary effort alike in individuals and in 
 nations; that the individual missionary is inspired 
 by a contemplation of his salary, and a nation by the 
 prospect of increased trade and commerce. It is 
 true that as long as man is compelled to eat in order 
 to live, selfish considerations are liable to enter into
 
 198 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 all human transactions, however altruistic they may 
 be in their essential nature. That particular neces- 
 sity of animal existence, however, was one of the ac- 
 tive agencies of organic evolution ; and in man it 
 is still the primary incentive to exertion. Emerson 
 (I think it was Emerson) once remarked that " every 
 man is as lazy as he dares to be." He might well 
 have added that the same is true of every sentient 
 creature. Even the "little busy bee," who in North- 
 ern latitudes is compelled to " improve each shining 
 hour" in order to provide food for the winter, utterly 
 refuses to do anything of the kind after he is trans- 
 ported to a land of perpetual sunshine and flowers. 1 
 
 v The truth of the remark, so far as it pertains to man, 
 is illustrated by the fact that " in isolated parts of 
 
 * the earth, where the natural supply of food is abun- 
 dant, as in sundry tropical islands of the Pacific 
 Ocean, men have ceased from warfare and become 
 gentle and docile without rising above the intellect- 
 ual level of savagery." 2 It must be added that this 
 
 I particular gentle savage has also ceased from work, 
 and for him a breech-clout is a wardrobe of excep- 
 tional extravagance. He is "just as lazy as he dares 
 to be;" and he dares everything because he has 
 nothing to lose by idleness and nothing to gain by 
 
 \ work. He is peaceful because he has no rights 
 worth invading. Spontaneous nature supplies his 
 daily food. In winter he is clothed with the sun ; 
 
 '. and his summer garment is the shade of the tree 
 that drops his daily bread into his open mouth. 
 Of course he is gentle and docile; of course he is 
 
 1 Romanes, Mental Evolution in Animals. 
 
 2 Fiske, Destiny of Man.
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 199 
 
 lazy ; of course he has not risen above the intellect- 
 ual level of savagery; and of course he never will 
 rise above that level. An exceptionally unfavorable 
 environment has deprived him of that incentive to 
 activity that is inspired by the instinct of self-pres- 
 ervation alike in the lower animals and in man- 
 kind, namely, the necessity of struggling for daily 
 sustenance. 
 
 It is this necessity for food that causes animals and 
 savages to fight and to work. But it is also this 
 necessity that sharpens their wits and develops their 
 understanding. And in the highest civilization it is 
 still a powerful agency for the development of the 
 human intellect; for, whilst peaceful competition in 
 trade and commerce has largely taken the place of 
 brute force as a means of supplying the necessities 
 of mankind, it requires the exercise of all the powers 
 of the mind to achieve success. The necessity for 
 procuring subsistence, therefore, is not only constant 
 and imperative in itself, but it compels the cultivation 
 of the intellectual faculties; and in the larger opera- 
 tions of trade and foreign commerce it facilitates 
 intercourse with the world at large and promotes 
 harmonious foreign relations. These results, in turn, 
 directly or indirectly, are promotive of the develop- 
 ment of altruistic emotions in a constantly broaden- 
 ing field, the grand result of which must be to bring 
 about, on a national scale, the normally harmonious 
 relation between the instinct of self-preservation and 
 the altruistic, progressive, evolutionary instinct that 
 moves the world toward the final goal of universal 
 altruism. 
 
 No ; trade with foreign nations is not incompatible
 
 200 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 with the exercise of the most exalted beneficence 
 toward them. On the contrary, it affords the great- 
 est facilities for the establishment and maintenance 
 of such relations. Besides, nations, as well as individ- 
 uals, must be prosperous before they can be altruistic. 
 The instinct that accumulates provides the only means 
 for the exercise of benevolence. The hand of Charity 
 would be useless if it could not grasp the gifts she 
 would bestow. The bounties which God bestows 
 upon his children are taken from a full store. 
 
 On the other hand, it should be remembered by 
 nations, as well as individuals, that God requires a 
 strict accounting for the uses for which his bounty is 
 employed, and that to whomsoever much is given, of 
 him shall much be required. 
 
 Trade in itself, when honestly and properly con- 
 ducted, with due regard to the rights of all concerned, 
 is a happy illustration of the harmonious develop- 
 ment of the two instincts, the self-regarding and the 
 other-regarding, for whilst it furnishes subsistence 
 for those who are engaged in it, the surplus accumu- 
 lations invariably redound to the benefit of others. 
 The accumulation of wealth, therefore, cannot prop- 
 erly be discouraged ; but it will be a happy day for 
 humanity when all millionaires shall hold it to be 
 "disgraceful to die rich." 1 It is an encouraging sign 
 of the times that the example has been set by one 
 who is daily giving evidence of the sincerity of his 
 words by munificent benefactions on lines of purest 
 altruism. 
 
 I have now briefly indicated the lines upon which 
 nations progress from savagery to civilization, from 
 1 The words of Andrew Carnegie.
 
 TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 2OI 
 
 instinctive self-regarding to instinctive altruism. I 
 have shown that nations and individuals are governed 
 by the same psychological laws, and that those laws 
 are the same that prevail in the life of the lower 
 animals. The law of suggestion has been the mov- 
 ing agency of psychic development from the time 
 when a brain was developed in animals_untijjiow ; 
 the process of development in animals has been by 
 intelligent adjustments to environment, which, by 
 being frequently performed, have become automatic 
 in the individual, and then inherited till they become 
 automatic habits in the race (Romanes), or, in other 
 words, until they are transformed into secondary in- 
 stincts. When man appeared he was governed by 
 the same law of development, and his whole character 
 is made up of hereditary instincts thus acquired, plus 
 the sum of his individual acquirements. I have 
 shown that the psychical character of aggregated 
 humanity, whether of tribes, communities, states, or 
 nations, is developed in precisely the same way and 
 under precisely the same laws. That is to say, it 
 has been shown that secondary instincts are formed, 
 first by intelligent adjustments to environment, re- 
 sulting in habits that eventually become converted 
 into instincts and are then inherited, till they become 
 habits in the state or nation ; and that the tendency 
 or trend of these developments is always onward and 
 upward toward perfection ; that in the organic world 
 the final goal was man ; that in men and nations the 
 final goal is universal altruism. I have shown that 
 behind this process of development there exists, in- 
 herent in all sentient creatures, from the primordial 
 cell to man, a constant, forceful, impellent energy
 
 202 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 that irresistibly impels all living beings forward in 
 the lines of progressional development; that this 
 energy is embodied, so to speak, in a primary in- 
 stinct; that in its every form of manifestation, from 
 the moneron to man, it is essentially altruistic in that 
 it constantly prompts to acts which redound to the 
 benefit of future generations ; that it is normally 
 paramount to all other instincts, including the in- 
 stinct of self-preservation ; and hence, that the most 
 potent psychic force in nature, normally developed, 
 irresistibly impels mankind toward the final consum- 
 mation which was foreshadowed by the Man of Naza- 
 reth, universal altruism. 
 
 It remains to show that the higher attributes of the 
 character of man, namely, his moral and religious 
 nature, are developed under the same laws and by the 
 same processes that we have been considering. The 
 next chapter will be devoted to a brief examination of 
 that process.
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 EVOLUTION OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS 
 PRINCIPLES. 
 
 Normal Control of the Subjective Mind. When Conscience becomes 
 Instinctive. A Secondary Instinct. The Ultimate Instinctive 
 Emotion of the Human Soul. Dominates all other Emotions. 
 
 It was developed precisely the same as were all other Second- 
 ary Instincts. It was the Result of the Inductive Reasoning of 
 the Objective Mind. Facts of Observation and Experience 
 resulted in the Maxim, " Honesty is the Best Policy." This is 
 Mr. Spencer's Conscience. It culminates just where Real Con- 
 science begins. It is the Utilitarian Conscience. It is a Step 
 in the Process of Development, not the Process itself. It 
 constitutes a Suggestion to the Subjective Mind. The Sugges- 
 tion is accepted and deductively carried to Higher Conclusions. 
 
 It is thus reinforced by every Religious Principle or Emotion. 
 
 It is further assisted by Intuition. As with the Lower Animals, 
 so with Man. Every Step in Advance is accompanied by Increased 
 Powers of Intuitive Perception of Essential Truth. Jesus of 
 Nazareth is an Example. The Older Prophets. Conscience, 
 however, may be perverted. Hence the Inquisition and Reli- 
 gious Wars ; hence Cranks. Perverted or unperverted, it is the 
 Strongest Emotion of the Human Soul. Perverted Conscience 
 the Exception ; hence Progress toward the Higher Altruism. It 
 is when Conscience becomes Instinctive that the Subjective Mind 
 assumes the Ascendancy. The Suggestions of Conscience over- 
 shadow all other Suggestions. At the Threshold of the Moral 
 and Religious Realm the Soul asserts its Normal Supremacy. 
 
 WHEN I say that there comes a time in the 
 history of every fully and normally developed 
 man or woman when the subjective mind rightfully 
 and normally assumes the ascendancy, it will seem 
 like a contradiction of what has been said of the law 
 of suggestion and of the normal dominancy of the
 
 204 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 < objective mind under that law. It is, nevertheless, 
 
 ; true that the time does come when the subjective 
 
 ! mind assumes a normal and a rightful supremacy. It 
 is not, however, an exceptional violation of the law 
 
 i of suggestion, but a legitimate and direct consequence 
 of that law. The time when this psychological phe- 
 nomenon is witnessed is when conscience becomes an 
 
 ' instinctive quality or emotion of the individual. A 
 very few words will make my meaning clear. 
 
 Conscience, like every other emotion of the human 
 mind that distinguishes it from the mind of the brute, 
 is a secondary instinct. It is, in fact, the ultimate 
 instinctive emotion of the human mind as manifested 
 in this life. It is, moreover, the strongest emotion of 
 the human soul, for it is reinforced by all the higher 
 instinctive emotions that characterize mankind in 
 the higher stages of civilization. 
 
 And here let me say, parenthetically, that in deal- 
 ing with the subject of the religious emotions I shall 
 take as my example the normal development of 
 conscience; and that I employ that attribute as an 
 illustration because it is, in a sense, inclusive of all 
 the higher emotions of the soul. 
 
 'r Conscience, in the ordinary acceptation of the 
 term, covers everything in man's nature that has to 
 
 ' do with the decision and direction of moral conduct. 
 
 , Ethically considered, it has been defined as " the 
 power or faculty in man by which he distinguishes 
 between the right and wrong in conduct and character, 
 
 j and which imperatively commands and obligates him 
 to do the right and abstain from doing the wrong." 1 
 The latter half of this definition may be accepted 
 
 1 Standard Dictionary.
 
 CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 2O$ 
 
 as a sufficiently exact definition of conscience for 
 present purposes. But the first part is descriptive of 
 an intellectual, perceptive, discriminative power or 
 faculty, and not of an emotion. The impulse that 
 " imperatively commands and obligates" is emotive, 
 and not the discriminative power that distinguishes. 
 It is true, as we shall see later on, that the discrim- 
 inative power may become intuitional, but the dis- 
 tinction holds good nevertheless. 
 
 The power or faculty in man which ordinarily 
 distinguishes between right and wrong was originally 
 purely intellectual. It was the result of long ages of 
 observation and experience. In other words, it was 
 the result of the exercise of the power of inductive 
 reasoning; the observation and experience of hu- 
 manity furnishing the facts from which to generalize. 
 The grand result of this age-long process was such 
 summations of human experience as the maxim, 
 " Honesty is the best policy." 
 
 This is the outcome of the reasoning of the purely 
 intellectual, unemotional, utilitarian, objective mind. 
 It is not a great moral principle. It is not even 
 honest. It is a cold statement of a matter of 
 policy. It is a statement of a bald fact that can 
 be rendered into a homelier phrase without chang- 
 ing its meaning in the slightest degree ; namely, " On 
 the whole, -it pays best to deal honestly." It is 
 the cold, calculating, commercial conscience of the 
 utilitarian world ; but it possesses no more vital 
 honesty, morality, or religion than do the statistical 
 tables of an insurance actuary. 
 
 It is, however, the best specimen of a conscience 
 that is dreamed of in the philosophy of Herbert
 
 206 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 Spencer; and he gives the maxim " Honesty is the 
 best policy " as the " summation " of human experi- 
 ence in the moral and religious world. 1 And this 
 conclusion is the direct and only legitimate outcome 
 of his " doctrine of utility " and selfishness, of which 
 I have before spoken. I do not, however, complain 
 of Mr. Spencer's conclusion that the maxim quoted 
 is the utilitarian outcome of his doctrine of utility; 
 for he is obviously right. What I do object to is his 
 doctrine that the maxim is the summation of all 
 religious and moral experiences. That is to say, the 
 necessary implication of his philosophy is that all 
 moral and religious sentiments were antecedent to 
 the maxim. He recognizes nothing as the outcome 
 of the maxim itself outside of its utility as a rule of 
 civil conduct which, if followed strictly, will serve to 
 keep men out of the penitentiary. 
 
 Doubtless the world performed many moral and 
 religious acts before the maxim was formulated. 
 Otherwise there would have been no means of as- 
 certaining the comparative utility of good and bad 
 actions; and the agnostic world would still be in 
 doubt as to which would pay the greatest dividends 
 " in the long run." But Mr. Spencer stops with the 
 maxim. It is, in his philosophy, the grand summa- 
 tion of moral and religious experiences. It is the 
 " conscience " of the Spencerian philosophy, if indeed 
 that great philosopher can be said to have recognized 
 the existence of such a faculty in the human mind. 
 It must be presumed that he did not, since the word 
 itself does not appear to form a part of his psychologi- 
 cal vocabulary. 
 
 1 Principles of Psychology, part ix. p. 620.
 
 CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 2O/ 
 
 However, it does not appear that he recognizes 
 any higher standard of morality or of religion or 
 of altruism, or of human conduct in any of the 
 relations of man to his fellow-men or to God, than 
 that embraced in the maxim. It is, indeed, im- 
 possible that the philosophy of selfishness and the 
 doctrine of utility should lead to any other than a 
 selfishly utilitarian generalization. From his view- 
 point, therefore, Mr. Spencer is logically right in his 
 induction. 
 
 But, like most of the other " great principles " of 
 the agnostic philosophers, the maxim in question 
 is not a principle, or a law of nature, in the proper 
 acceptation of the terms. Like natural selection, it 
 is incidental to the great law of evolutionary develop- 
 ment. It marks a step in the process of progressive 
 psychological development, and not the consumma- 
 tion of that process. The great psychological con- 
 summation of the evolutionary process is universal 
 altruism, another name for which is universal hon- 
 esty, not the honesty that is instigated by motives 
 of policy; not the honesty that is based upon careful 
 estimates of comparative chances for realizing divi- 
 dends, not the honesty that finds its inspiration in the 
 statistical tables of a moral actuary; but an honesty 
 that is instigated by an instinctive love of right because 
 it is right, by an intuitive apprehension of the eternal 
 principles of right, by an irresistible impulse to do 
 the right and abstain from doing the wrong. In 
 short, tjieJinaLgoal of psychological evolution is the 
 development in man of a conscience. 
 
 Now, as before remarked, conscience is a secondary 
 instinct; and it is developed precisely as all other
 
 208 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 secondary instincts are developed. That is to say, 
 the first step is an intelligent adaptation to environ- 
 ment. The resultant acts constitute suggestions to 
 the subjective mind. These suggestions are accepted, 
 and the acts gradually become habitual, then auto- 
 matic, and are finally converted into inheritable 
 instincts. 
 
 The process of developing an instinctive conscience 
 is precisely the same in principle. It is much more 
 complicated, and it consumes a greater amount of 
 time, owing to the infinite complexities of man's en- 
 vironment. But the processes are psychologically 
 identical. 
 
 Thus, since the advent of civilization, the environ- 
 mental conditions to which man finds it necessary to 
 adapt himself are largely of a moral, ethical, and 
 religious nature. In his dealings with his fellow-men 
 he is constantly confronted with conditions that render 
 it necessary to decide questions of right and wrong 
 and to choose intelligently between the two. In 
 other words, the cool, calculating, utilitarian objective 
 mind has been engaged, since the dawn of civilization, 
 in a process of inductive inquiry having in view the 
 solution of the question as to what it is best for man 
 to do when he has the power of choice between evil 
 and good, between honest dealing with his neighbor 
 and selfishness and wrong. The result of this age- 
 long induction has been formulated by people of the 
 higher civilization that is, by those who have had 
 the benefit of the greatest range of observation and ex- 
 perience in some such generalizations as " Honesty 
 is the best policy." 
 
 This, as we have already observed, is the Ultima
 
 CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 209 
 
 Thule of psychological development in the moral and 
 religious worlds, according to the Spencerian philos- 
 ophy. It is the conscience of the doctrine of utility. 
 Here, then, we must part company with Mr. Spencer 
 and his worshippers; for here is the very beginning, 
 the primary step, toward the development of a true 
 conscience. 
 
 The intelligent reader has already anticipated me 
 when I say that in the process of adapting himself 
 to his environment, social, political, moral, and reli- 
 gious, man has reasoned up to the conclusion em- 
 braced in the maxim ; and that that and kindred 
 summations of intelligent observation and experi- 
 ence constitute suggestions to the subjective mind ; 
 and that the resultant acts, at first intelligent and 
 deliberate, afterwards become habitual and auto- 
 matic in the individual, and are finally converted 
 into instincts. And I may here remark, paren- 
 thetically, that this is the only possible process by 
 which conscience can become hereditary; for it is 
 only those qualities of mind that become what we 
 call, for the want of a better term, " instinctive," 
 that are inheritable. In other words, it is only 
 those qualities or faculties of mind that become 
 incorporated into the subjective mind that become 
 inheritable characteristics of a race or species. This 
 is as true of the higher qualities of mind as it is of 
 the instincts of the lower animals. 
 
 Hence it is that when conscience becomes instinc- 
 tive it becomes in the highest degree emotional ; 
 and it is a matter of common observation that when 
 highly developed, and especially when it is re- 
 inforced by other instinctive emotions, it is the 
 
 4
 
 210 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 strongest and most powerful emotion of the human 
 soul. 
 
 The process of development is easily understood 
 by those who have followed me in the earlier chap- 
 ters of this book. As already pointed out, the utili- 
 tarian suggestion that honesty pays best in the long 
 run is instantly seized by the subjective mind. But 
 that suggestion is of small moment in itself com- 
 pared to the deductions derivable from it. It must 
 be remembered in this connection that, whilst the 
 subjective mind is incapable of inductive reasoning, 
 its deductive powers are potentially perfect. That 
 is to say, it cannot institute an independent system 
 of gathering facts from which to reason up to gen- 
 eral principles; but once a general principle is estab- 
 lished and conveyed to it by suggestion, it will reason 
 deductively from that principle to all legitimate, logi- 
 cal conclusions with inerrant exactitude. 
 
 Now, the general principle in the case under con- 
 sideration is embraced in the maxim quoted above. 
 It is a natural deduction to generalize the principle 
 still further into " It is always best to do right." 
 It is but a matter of deduction to infer that since it 
 is always best for man in this world to deal honestly 
 with his fellow-men, it must also redound to his bene- 
 fit in the world to come. Thus, the instinct of self- 
 preservation is appealed to, first, in the maxim itself, 
 which pertains to this world, and, secondly, in the 
 deduction, which pertains to the next. 
 
 Again, it is but a matter of deduction to infer that 
 since it is always best to do right, it must be because 
 it is pleasing in the sight of God ; and thus the in- 
 stinctive conscience is strongly reinforced by the 
 instinct of religious worship.
 
 CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 211 
 
 I have already spoken of the evolutionary or altru- 
 istic instinct as being normally stronger than the 
 instinct of self-preservation. It is a matter of the 
 most obvious deduction to correlate conscience wit h 
 altruism_and thus unite two of the strongest impulses 
 of the human soul. 
 
 Again, I have shown elsewhere that when one 
 faculty of the subjective mind is excited to activity 
 it naturally tends to stimulate all its correlative 
 faculties. So true is this that it has passed into a 
 proverb, "Pity is akin to love." It has also been* 
 noted by many philosophers that religious revivals ' 
 tend to the excitation of other than purely religious / 
 emotions. All these apparent anomalies are easily 
 explicable on the theory that all the emotions, when < 
 normally developed and unperverted, are purely 
 altruistic in nature and function, and are therefore ' 
 so intimately interrelated that the excitation of one 
 emotion stimulates all its correlatives, especially 
 where there are two or more coexistent causes of | 
 excitation. Thousands of illustrative examples will 
 be recalled by every intelligent reader, especially if 
 he is acquainted with the abnormal tendencies often / 
 exhibited by psychics. This, however, is foreign to 
 my present purpose, and it is only mentioned for 
 the purpose of illustrating my meaning when I say I 
 that the excitation of one faculty or emotion of the 
 subjective mind naturally tends to stimulate all the ' 
 other faculties that are interrelated. 
 
 When, therefore, conscience becomes an active 
 principle in the subjective mind, it stimulates every 
 emotion or faculty that is concerned with questions 
 of right or wrong in human conduct. Now, the one
 
 212 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 great faculty of the subjective mind_that is the nor- 
 mal correlative of conscience is the faculty of intui- 
 tive perception of essential truth or first principles. 
 By essential truth I mean the truth that it is essen- 
 tial for each sentient creature to know relative to the 
 laws of its being. This knowledge is supplied by 
 instinct, and it exists in the subjective mind of each 
 sentient being, from the moneron to man ; and it is 
 exactly proportioned in each to its stage of develop- 
 ment and its consequent needs. 
 
 When, therefore, man becomes highly developed, 
 morally and religiously, and conscience has become 
 an active principle in his subjective mind, the faculty 
 of intuitive perception of essential truth is developed 
 in exact proportion. Were this not true, man, espe- 
 cially highly developed man, would constitute an 
 exception to the general law. We know that it is 
 true of the lower animals, from the primordial cell 
 upward. We know that man is descended from the 
 lower animals, and that the laws of his growth and 
 evolutionary development are identical with those of 
 his humble ancestry. Besides, we are not without 
 examples attesting its truth in relation to man. The 
 Great Exemplar was, of course, Jesus of Nazareth. 
 His conscience was, without doubt, developed in 
 absolute perfection. And we know now that his in- 
 tu i tive knowledge of the laws, of the rruman_gp u 1 , 
 including_the_great ^principles o f_rjght and wrong, 
 was correspondingly exact. I say we know this, 
 because modern science is powerless to disprove one 
 essential tenet of his doctrine. It_can only^ confirm. 
 Other great exemplars are not wanting, differing 
 widely in degree, but attesting the soundness of the
 
 CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 213 
 
 principle. Some of the old prophets were highly 
 endowed with the powers of intuition, as shown by 
 the wonderful accuracy of some of their previsions. 
 Nor are modern instances entirely wanting. This, 
 however, is not the proper place to discuss this 
 branch of the general subject in detail. It is intro- 
 duced here merely for the purpose of completing my 
 outline sketch of the process by which conscience is 
 developed in normally constituted men and women; 
 and to show what a strong moral energy is resi- 
 dent within the man in whom conscience has been 
 developed on lines of perfect truth. 
 
 I am speaking, of course, of the normal method 
 of developing conscience in the normal man. Con- 
 science, however, like every other faculty or quality 
 of the human mind, may be perverted by wrong edu- 
 cation or an unfavorable environment. The Inquisi- 
 tion was the result of perverted conscience. Religious 
 wars are frequently the results of perverted or un- 
 enlightened conscience. In every-day life, among 
 highly civilized peoples, perverted conscience often 
 manifests itself in the utter inability of certain classes 
 of people to adapt themselves to their environment. 
 Thus, the cranky reformer, the fundamental tenet of 
 whose creed is that " whatever is, is wrong," is often 
 merely a victim of aperverted conscience. It somjL- 
 times amounts to a moral insanity that is just as pro- 
 nounced and often as offensive as total depravity. 
 
 But, perverted or unperverted, conscience is by far 
 the strongest emotion of the human soul ; for the 
 veriest physical coward will often face the cannon's 
 mouth for conscience' sake, even in a bad cause. # 
 
 Fortunately for humanity, perverted conscience is
 
 3V^ 
 
 214 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the exception rather than the rule. Were it not 
 so, mediaeval conditions would still prevail. More 
 fortunate still* it is for humanity that the inherent 
 strength and energy of conscience as an agent of 
 progressive development of the good there is in man, 
 depends entirely upon the character of the correla- 
 tive emotions and faculties that are concerned in its 
 development. Thus, if one's conscience is based 
 entirely upon the instinct of self-preservation, that 
 is to say, if fear of punishment for wrong-doing is the 
 only incentive to right living, it is an imperfectly 
 developed conscience, if indeed it can properly be 
 designated as conscience. The same is true even if 
 it is reinforced by the instinct of religious worship. 
 Again, a conscience that is based entirely upon the 
 altruistic instinct or emotion is still lacking in some 
 of the essential elements of a perfectly developed 
 conscience. 
 
 I assume that in all the cases above mentioned 
 there is still lacking an essential element, for one very 
 good and, as I think, sufficient reason ; and that is 
 that history does not furnish an example where such 
 partial developments were materially assisted by in- 
 tuition. On the other hand, we have numerous 
 examples, culminating in Jesus of Nazareth, where 
 a conscience based upon a harmonious development 
 of the three great instincts namely,J:he instinct of 
 . self-preservation, the altruistic instinct, and the in- 
 1 stinct of religious worship was reinforced By an in- 
 tuitive perception of the eternal principles of right 
 
 an wrong. 
 
 ,< > Ur j" Now, I have already pointed out the fact that each 
 sentient creature is endowed with an instinctive or
 
 CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 215 
 
 intuitive knowledge of the laws of its being, and that 
 this knowledge is exactly proportioned to its stage of \ 
 mental or physical development, or, in other words, , 
 in exact proportion to its wants and necessities. I 
 have also shown that man constitutes no exception 
 to this rule. It is also true that this instinctive 
 knowledge is never attained in advance of conditions 
 that render it necessary. 
 
 We have a right to expect, therefore, that when 
 the process of developing man's moral nature com- 
 mences, and the proper stage of development has 
 been reached, his intuitions will be developed in 
 exact proportion to his needs. Accordingly we find 
 that, in the evolution of conscience, at a certain, 
 definite stage of that evolution, man does develop 
 the power of intuitive perception of the essential 
 truth pertaining to conscience. Obviously the only 
 general truth answering to the necessities of con- 
 science is that embraced in the principles of right 
 and wrong. That is the knowledge required to en- 
 able man to perform all his duties in perfection. 
 We further find that man never attains that intuition 
 until he seeks to develop his conscience upon the 
 basis of the three primary instincts, never excluding 
 or subordinating that of religious worship. 
 
 The inevitable inference is, man owes duties to his 
 God as well as to his fellow-men and to himself, the ' 
 last-named being always subordinate to the others ; ( 
 and that a perfect conscience must be based upon 
 those instincts which include all three lines of duty. 
 
 It is obvious that any one of the three instincts 
 would be sufficient to convert the principle involved 
 in the suggestion into an instinctive impulse of dom-
 
 2l6 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 inating potency. But when the three are combined, 
 as they are in every normally constituted person, 
 conscience becomes an instinctive emotion of such 
 supreme power that the gates of hell cannot pre- 
 vail against it. It is then the strongest instinct of 
 the human soul. Then it is that men will face the 
 cannon's mouth for conscience' sake. Then it is 
 that men and women will welcome torture and tribu- 
 lation in this world, and calmly yield up their lives 
 at the stake rather than surrender the convictions of 
 conscience. 
 
 Thus it is, and then it is, that the subjective mind 
 of man, for the first time in all its history, rightfully 
 and normally assumes the ascendancy. It is not 
 because the law of suggestion has been suspended or 
 modified, but because the auto-suggestions of con- 
 science are more potent than any suggestions that 
 can be brought to bear against its convictions. This 
 is the safeguard which the laws of nature throw 
 around every human soul that is possessed of a con- 
 science, and which forever guards and protects it, 
 under all circumstances and conditions, from the 
 suggestions of crime or immorality. 
 
 It will thus be seen that at the very threshold of 
 the moral and spiritual realm the soul stands ready 
 to assume its rightful supremacy. It is its own do- 
 main, its native realm, for it extends over from 
 time to eternity; and the soul alone is concerned 
 with both. It is then that the soul becomes the " in- 
 ward monitor," the " still small voice " which leads 
 mankind in the ways of truth and righteousness.
 
 II. 
 
 PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN THEISM.
 
 part II. 
 
 PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN THEISM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PRELIMINARY. 
 
 Facts of Evolution to be distinguished from Theories of Evolution- 
 ists. Theistic Argument, per se, to be based upon Facts presented 
 by Antitheistic Evolutionists, Darwin, Haeckel, and Romanes. 
 Their Arguments for Evolution to be utilized as a Basis of 
 Theistic Conclusions. Exception to be taken to Subsidiary 
 Hypotheses. Distinction to be drawn between Theisms. The- 
 ism, per se, proven by Facts of Evolution. Christian Theism by 
 Evolution and Psychology. The World interested alone in 
 Christian Theism. Is Christian Civilization founded on Truth 
 or Error? The New Psychology a Necessary Factor. The 
 Old Psychologies Inadequate to a Solution of the Problem. 
 
 IN order that there may be no misunderstanding 
 either on the part of the general reader or of 
 possible atheistic critics, I desire to have it clearly 
 understood at the outset that the theistic argument 
 which follows will be based upon the facts of organic 
 and mental evolution as stated by Darwin and his 
 followers. Among the latter I desire to make par- 
 ticular mention of the names of Haeckel and Ro- 
 manes; of the former because (r) he was a follower 
 of Darwin, (2) he was indorsed by Darwin in the 
 later editions of his works, (3) he treated the subject
 
 220 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 of man's evolution more fully than did Darwin, and 
 (4) because he was more radically atheistic in his 
 expressed conclusions than was Darwin himself. I 
 mention Romanes for practically the same reasons. 
 He was a follower and an intimate personal friend of 
 Darwin, and his views at the time he wrote the works 
 from which I have quoted were as pronouncedly 
 atheistic as were those of either Darwin or Haeckel. 1 
 
 I am thus particular in segregating the facts stated 
 by the evolutionary philosophers from their theories 
 or hypotheses for the reason that I accept their facts 
 and shall base my argument upon them. _I__also ac- 
 cept and shall insist upon the general theory that 
 man is descended from the lower animals ; that the 
 potentials of manhood resided in the primordial cell ; 
 that all instincts, primary and secondary, are inherited 
 as long as they are useful ; and finally, that man is 
 t\\ejummum bomim, so to speak, of all ancestral forms 
 and faculties, the final goaloforganic evolution. 
 
 These are the principal and the valid claims of 
 the evolutionists, and those claims I shall steadily 
 insist upon. I shall also accept as valid their princi- 
 pal arguments in favor of the general theory of evo- 
 lution. I shall lay great stress, for instance, upon 
 the doctrine of heredity; and I shall particularly 
 insist upon the entire validity of their analogical a^r- 
 
 1 In justice to the memory of Romanes I must not omit to men- 
 tion that his most pronounced atheistic views were expressed in a 
 work published anonymously, entitled " A Candid Examination of 
 Theism," by " Physicus." In later years, however, he modified his 
 views as therein expressed, and his notes were published post- 
 humously under the title " Thoughts on Religion." Candor compels 
 the remark, however, that, from a purely scientific point of view, his 
 recantation is as valueless as his original arguments.
 
 PRELIMINARY. 22 1 
 
 _gument from the ontogeny of the germinal cell of 
 man to the phylogeny of the primordial _germ. v As 
 this argument is their stronghold, being absolutely 
 invulnerable in itself, atheism could ask no greater 
 concession than its acceptance by theism. It will 
 thus be seen that I propose to accept, without quali- 
 fication, all that is really fundamental in the theory 
 of evolution, both of fact and of argument. I do so 
 for two very good and sufficient reasons; namely, 
 first, because they are right, and secondly, because 
 they are exactly suited to my purpose. 
 
 But when we come to the subsidiary hypotheses 
 of those scientists, vastly different questions present 
 themselves. For instance, the theory of natural 
 selection cannot be received without some qualifi- 
 cation, as I have already pointed out. I have also 
 ventured to criticise other subsidiary theories of Mr. 
 Darwin and his followers, and it is for this- reason 
 that I wish to remind the critical reader that the 
 validity of the theistic argument which I am about 
 to make will not rest upon the soundness of my 
 position where I have taken issue with those eminent 
 gentlemen on minor propositions. The point is that 
 I expect to make my argument complete as a refu- 
 tation of their atheistic conclusions without the ne- 
 cessity of employing other facts or other arguments 
 than their own. This may sound paradoxical ; but 
 the intelligent reader will understand my meaning 
 when I say that I shall simply take up their facts and 
 their arguments at the point where they abruptly 
 stop and beg the question at issue, and carry said 
 facts and arguments to their legitimate and logical 
 conclusion. -
 
 222 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 I make these remarks at this time simply because 
 I am aware of the propensity so often indulged by 
 a certain class of agnostic philosophers to raise new 
 or collateral issues when they fail to meet the real 
 question. I wish therefore to direct the attention of 
 such philosophers to the argument based upon their 
 own data, and thus afford them the opportunity to 
 wrestle with that, before they assume, a priori, that 
 I am wrong because I differ with Darwin and his 
 worshippers on collateral issues. 
 
 It is not because I fear, or expect to escape, or 
 wish to avoid criticism for venturing to entertain 
 views of my own in regard to those issues, that I 
 have made these remarks. It is simply because I 
 desire the reader to distinguish carefully between 
 those arguments that are founded upon my dicta or 
 hypotheses and those founded upon the facts and 
 arguments furnished forth by my opponents. If 
 that distinction is carefully borne in mind, it will be 
 found that the theistic argument, per se, is complete 
 without taking my own theories into account. 
 
 But it must not be forgotten that it is one thing 
 to prove theism, or the existence of an intelligent 
 Great First Cause, as an independent proposition, and 
 quite another to prove Christian theism, or the ex- 
 istence of the God of Christian faith, as distinguished 
 from all other theistic hypotheses. The first, as I 
 shall proceed to show in subsequent chapters of this 
 book, is easily proven by the aid of the facts of 
 organic evolution, as set forth by the atheistic evo- 
 lutionists themselves. But Christian theism is not 
 so easily proven, inductively, without the aid of the 
 new psychology.
 
 PRELIMINARY. 223 
 
 Nor is the world at large very much interested in 
 the first, for the great bulk of mankind believes in 
 some form of theism. Even the agnostics are com- 
 pelled to admit that the universe appears to be 
 governed by some kind of intelligence; but hold 
 that it can bear no relation to insignificant man, and 
 that, whatever it is otherwise, it is " utterly inscru- 
 table " to man. 
 
 Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that we 
 should seek God, if haply we " might feel after him, 
 and find him, though he is not far from each one of 
 us: for in him we live, and move, and have our 
 being; . . . for we are also his offspring." 1 
 
 It follows that we may know something of One 
 who is so near to every one of us; that he is not 
 " utterly inscrutable ; " that if we are his offspring, 
 we may not only trace our pedigree back to him, 
 but by an analysis of the mind nearest to him, and 
 continuing that analysis to the mind of man, we may 
 know something of the attributes of him from whom 
 we are descended. 
 
 The world is interested in this form of theism ; for 
 it is of the last importance that it should know 
 whether or not the religion which bears a causal rela- 
 tion to the greatest civilization on earth is founded 
 upon a fundamental truth. And it looks to inductive 
 science for a solution of the problem. It is this 
 form of theism that it is the object of this book to 
 examine. 
 
 And this is why I have taken the pains to outline 
 the fundamental principles of the new psychology, 
 and to correlate them with the facts of organic evo- 
 
 1 Acts xvii. 27 et seq. (St. Paul).
 
 224 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 lution. For if Christian theism is destined ever to be 
 established by induction, it is obvious that it can be 
 done only by a study of the facts and principles of 
 these two sciences. C~-** 3 r ^^*^7 *^~^ Cu -f-^ 
 
 And that is the reason why I have asked the 
 reader to bear the distinction in mind. Theism is 
 easily proven by the facts of organic evolution alone. 
 Christian theism requires the aid of a true psychol- 
 ogy. I have ventured to offer my own psycholog- 
 ical hypotheses, for the reason that they seem to 
 harmonize all the facts of organic and mental evolu- 
 tion with the essential principles of Christian theism. 
 This the old psychology could not do ; and the new 
 physiological psychology does not touch the question. 
 Under the old psychology any possible conception 
 of the attributes of God based upon the known 
 powers of the mind of man could not escape the 
 charge of the crassest anthropomorphism. I shall 
 attempt to show that under the new psychology, as 
 outlined in this book, the highest possible concep- 
 tion of the attributes and powers of the Deity may 
 be gained by an analysis of the known powers of 
 the subjective mind of man.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE GREAT ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 
 
 Logical Cobwebs to be cleared away. The Real Question : Is 
 there a Personal Deity ? Anthropomorphism not Chargeable 
 under New Psychology. The Service rendered by Evolutionists. 
 
 Refuted Doctrine of Special Creations, and then said in 
 their Hearts, " There is no God." Mr. Darwin's Great Labor 
 directed toward Atheism. Entitled to Credit for proving Evolu- 
 tion. Natural Selection as the Origin of Species not sustained by 
 Facts. Artificial Selection produces New Morphological Species, 
 not 'Physiological. Examples. Huxley takes this View. 
 Proof of Natural Selection lacking. The Theory clung to by 
 Atheism, because it disguises the Theory that Physical Organism 
 antedates Intelligence This is the Stronghold of Atheism. 
 It is assumed without Proof, which is begging the Question. 
 Theory of Spontaneous Generation without One Fact to support 
 it. All Known Facts against it. Haeckel assumes it confessedly 
 without Facts. Begs the Question. Tyndall's Experiments 
 failed to produce Organic Life from Inorganic Matter. The Cru- 
 cial Point at the Beginning of Organic Life. Natural Selection 
 the Theory of Chance. Lamarck's Theory of Appetency. Dar- 
 win's Contempt for Lamarck because his Theory presupposed 
 Intelligence as the Cause of Organism. " It implies Necessary 
 Progression." "A Wretched Book." Darwin's Private Reli- 
 gious Views. Lamarck's Theory complementary to Darwin's. 
 Huxley's Latest Views. They indorse Lamarck's Theory. 
 Haeckel vs. Haeckel. The Scientist vs. the Atheist. The 
 Moneron demonstrates Mind as Antecedent to Physical Organism. 
 
 The Monera are Structureless, and yet they are endowed 
 with Mind and Life. A Wonderful Intelligence. His Theory 
 itself a Case of" Spontaneous Generation." The Moneron as a 
 Symbol and an Example. Symbolizes the Whole Process of 
 Evolution. An Example of Creative Power, of Control of 
 Mind over Matter, of the Immanence of the Soul in the Body. 
 
 Its Independence of Organism, of a Law of Infinite Repro- 
 duction. Haeckel's Assumption begs the Question at Issue. 
 
 15
 
 226 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 It is in Defiance of all Facts and Recognized Principles. Atheism 
 based upon Pure Assumption. The Theories of Darwin and 
 his Followers are Atheistic. Their Facts are Theistic. 
 
 BEFORE proceeding to the main argument it is 
 desirable to clear away a few of the logical 
 cobwebs with which the agnostic philosophers have 
 so ably obscured the question of theism as it is af- 
 fected by the facts of evolution. In doing so, there 
 will be no difficulty in showing that they have never 
 treated the real question logically or even fairly. 
 The real question is whether there exists an intelli- 
 gent, personal Deity. The word " personal" is here 
 employed for the want of a better term. Ifjntelli- 
 gence is granted, it presupposes a living, thinking, 
 percipient entity, a mental organism ; and an organ- 
 ized intelligence must be in some sense a personality. 
 Therefore an intelligent God must be a personal 
 God. The word " personal," as applied to the Deity, 
 has been a bete noir to atheistic philosophers for 
 many centuries, simply because they have chosen 
 to assume that it implies anthropomorphism. This 
 assumption was not wholly without warrant under 
 the old psychology; but before this book is finished 
 it will be shown that personality does not necessarily 
 imply anthropomorphism; and that the Christian 
 doctrine that man was made in the image of God 
 may be scientifically exact without being inconsistent 
 with the highest possible conception of a Deity. In 
 short, it will be shown that the crude and anthro- 
 pomorphic conceptions of God which were based 
 upon the assumption of the divine pedigree of man 
 were only possible under the old psychology. This, 
 however, must be reserved for its proper place in
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 22/ 
 
 future chapters. We will now proceed to examine 
 the logical attitude of those agnostic philosophers 
 who imagine that they have eliminated God from the 
 universe, or, to put it in the language of Romanes, 
 that there exists no logical " necessity for a God." J 
 
 At the outset due credit must be awarded to the 
 authors of the evolutionary hypothesis for the one 
 great service they have rendered to humanity and to 
 the cause of science and religion. They have logically 
 and scientifically demonstrated that evolution is God's^ 
 method of creation. That is to say, they have effec- v 
 tually disproved the old doctrine of special creations. 
 In doing so, they have, unintentionally it would seem, 
 done more for the cause of true religion, more to 
 demonstrate the existence of, and the logical neces- 
 sity for, an intelligent, personal Deity, than the old 
 doctrine of special, miraculous creations has ever, 
 done. 
 
 But it was at this point that they made their first 
 great logical mistake. They imagined that, since 
 they had done away with the doctrine of special 
 creations, they had also done away with the Creator, 
 or at least had obviated all logical necessity for a 
 Creator. Upon what principle of logic such a con- 
 clusion was thought to be legitimate, it would now 
 be useless to inquire. It is sufficient to know that 
 Mr. Darwin and his followers arrived at that conclu- 
 sion, although they attempted in various ways to 
 disguise it. At any rate, his efforts were in reality 
 directed more specifically and pronouncedly toward 
 the atheistic argument than they were towards the 
 proofs of any other one of his theses or hypotheses. 
 
 1 A Candid Examination of Theism.
 
 228 7 HE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN". 
 
 The theory of evolution by itself could have been 
 demonstrated to be true with half the labor that Mr. 
 Darwin bestowed jupon "The Origin of _Species." 
 The facts of paleontology alone would have been 
 sufficient. In point of fact, as Mr. Huxley has 
 pointed out, " primary and direct evidence in favor 
 of evolution can be furnished only by paleontology." * 
 Moreover, one half the facts of biology cited by Mr. 
 Darwin would have been sufficient to make aprima 
 facie case in favor of the evolutionary hypothesis ; 
 and it could have been done without committing its 
 author to a theory of causation that he has been 
 utterly unable to sustain. Besides, the moment the 
 doctrine of evolution is established, its opposite, 
 the doctrine of special creations, falls of its own 
 weight. 
 
 We may therefore concede, for the sake of the 
 argument, that Mr. Darwin is entitled to the credit 
 of making a prima facie case in favor of the evolu- 
 tionary hypothesis; and that, in so doing, he has 
 annihilated the doctrine of special creations. I say 
 we may concede that much ; for his facts, properly 
 classified and examined, without reference to his theory 
 of causation, are sufficient. But when we examine 
 them with reference to his theory, that is, with refer- 
 ence to his doctrine of natural selection as the cause 
 of the origin of species, a logical doubt is thrown 
 upon his whole doctrine. And I may here remark 
 that if the theory of evolution had depended for its 
 validity upon the labors of Mr. Darwin alone, it could 
 never have obtained general acceptance. It is to the 
 labors of his contemporaries and his successors that 
 
 1 Darwiniana, p. 239.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 22Q 
 
 the credit is due of placing the evolutionary hypothe- 
 sis beyond the region of rational doubt. 
 
 In saying this, I am not seeking to dim the lustre 
 of the fame of Mr. Darwin. Far from it. He is 
 entitled to all the credit due to the intelligent, in- 
 dustrious, and conscientious gatherer of the facts of 
 nature. He was, as such, one of the most illustrious 
 11 hewers of wood and drawers of water" for science 
 that the world has ever seen. It is upon this that 
 the true fame of Mr. Darwin must rest in all the ages. 
 It was this that first attracted the attention of scien- 
 tists in all parts of the civilized world. The true 
 scientist is an ardent lover of facts, as he should be; 
 but it must be said that he sometimes " loves, not 
 wisely, but too well ; " for it unfortunately happens 
 that even facts are sometimes prostituted to illegiti- 
 mate uses. That is to say, when a mass of new and 
 well-authenticated facts is presented to the scientist, 
 especially if it is accompanied by an attractive theory 
 of causation, he is not always careful to discriminate 
 between the facts that sustain the theory and those 
 which do not It will not be difficult to show that 
 Mr. Darwin's followers have not always been careful 
 to keep that distinction clearly in view. 
 
 The facts in the case are briefly these : Mr. Darwin, 
 in the course of extensive travel and long years of 
 close observation, had collected a vast store of facts 
 which bore upon the subject of organic evolution ; 
 and he wisely determined to embody the result of 
 his labors in a book setting forth his reasons for 
 believing that " the innumerable species, genera, and 
 families of organic beings with which the world is 
 peopled have all descended, each within its own
 
 230 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 class or group, from common parents, and have all 
 been modified in the course of descent." * No one 
 can deny that his fundamental doctrine of evolution- 
 ary development, as it is thus stated in his own lan- 
 guage, has been amply verified by his facts. But 
 when he comes to tell us how this modification 
 took place, he signally fails. In other words, when 
 he tells us that natural selection is the origin of 
 species, he signally fails to prove the correctness of 
 the hypothesis. That is to say, he has not given us 
 one instance where a new species has been produced 
 by either natural or artificial selection. He has 
 shown what everybody has observed for himself, 
 namely, that artificial selection that is, breeding 
 has the power to change vastly the structure, or 
 morphology, of animals, and thus produce what is 
 loosely termed " new species." Thus, the great 
 variety of pigeons shows what intelligent artificial 
 selection can do in the way of originating " morpho- 
 logical species ; " although it is well settled that all 
 the varieties are really descended from the rock 
 pigeon. Again, there is a wide difference between 
 the " razor-back " hog of the Southern States and 
 the "preposterous pig" of commerce as exhibited 
 in Northern county fairs and stockyards ; and still 
 more between the latter and the wild boar. But 
 they are all of the same physiological species. The 
 true test jg f species is in the phenomena of hybrjdjz a- 
 tion. Thus, if the offspring of jwo supposed^ species 
 are infertile with each other, or with the original 
 species on either side, the evidence is complete that 
 the two parents belong to different physiological 
 
 1 Origin of Species, ist ed., p. 457.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 231 
 
 species. The horse and the ass, for instance, when 
 bred together produce the hybrid mule; and the 
 latter is well known to be infertile with other mules 
 or with either of the parent species. On the other 
 hand, dogs, howsoever wide may be their morpholo- 
 gical differences, as between the greyhound and the 
 dachshund, for instance, are perfectly fertile with 
 each other, and their offspring are fertile with each 
 other and all other varieties or races of dogs. The 
 same may be said of hogs, pigeons, and many 
 other species with widely varying morphological 
 characteristics. 
 
 To show that I am not alone in my opinion as to 
 Mr. Darwin's failure to establish his doctrine that 
 natural selection is the originator of all species, I 
 quote the words of his best friend and most ardent 
 admirer and sympathizer, the late Thomas H. Huxley: 
 
 " After much consideration, and with assuredly no bias 
 against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear conviction that, 
 as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a 
 group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by 
 species in nature, has ever been originated by selection, 
 whether artificial or natural. Groups having the morpho- 
 logical character of species distinct and permanent races, 
 in fact have been so produced over and over again ; but 
 there is no positive evidence, at present, that any group of 
 animals has, by variation and selective breeding, given rise 
 to another group which was, even in the least degree, in- 
 fertile with the first. Mr. Darwin is perfectly aware of 
 this weak point, and brings forward a multitude of ingeni- 
 ous and important arguments to diminish the force of the 
 objection. We admit the value of these arguments to 
 their fullest extent; nay, we will go so far as to express
 
 232 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 our belief that experiments conducted by a skilful physiolo- 
 gist would very probably obtain the desired production of 
 mutually more or less infertile breeds from a common 
 stock in a comparatively few years ; but still, as the case 
 stands at present, this ' little rift within the lute ' is not to 
 be disguised or overlooked." 1 
 
 Now, it so happens that this " little rift within the 
 lute " is large enough to destroy utterly the concord 
 of sweet sounds which is popularly supposed to 
 emanate from Mr. Darwin's instrument. In other 
 words, the above quotation is the candid though 
 evidently reluctant admission of an honest man that 
 Mr. Darwin, with all his vast array of facts, has 
 utterly failed to find one that proves his hypothesis, 
 " even in the least degree." That is to say, the 
 theory that all those physiological changes and dif- 
 ferentiations that constitute species in animals, the 
 theory that all structural changes in animal life which 
 make up the sum-total of evolutionary development, 
 the theory that was supposed to eliminate God from 
 the universe and relegate all the works of nature 
 to the domain of chance, is found to be without 
 one solitary fact to sustain it. 
 
 It does not in the least degree militate against 
 this one fact for Mr. Huxley to say that Mr. Darwin's 
 arguments are "ingenious and important" when he 
 tries to diminish its force. Nor does it strengthen 
 the weak point when Mr. Huxley admits the 
 value of the ingenious arguments aforesaid. Nor 
 does it aid Mr. Darwin to supply the demand for 
 facts when Mr. Huxley goes so far as to guess that 
 some future " skilful physiologist " might be able to 
 1 Darwiniana, pp. 74, 75.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 233 
 
 supply the required fact for Mr. Darwin if he would 
 only try hard enough. The fact remains that Mr. 
 Darwin's theory that natural selection accounts for 
 the origin of species has not one fact to sustain it. 
 
 Now, I hasten to repeat what I said in Part I. of 
 this book; namely, that I have no quarrel with the 
 theory of natural selection, or survival of the 
 fittest. But it is a subsidiary factor in the grand 
 scheme of evolutionary development, and not the 
 
 scheme itself. Witlf^i its "sphere of influence" it is 
 
 r 
 
 supreme, and no theory of evolution would be com- 
 plete without it. But to say that it is the cause of 
 organic evolution could only be exactly paralleled in 
 absurdity by supposing the revolution of the earth on 
 its own axis to be the cause of all planetary motion. 
 Indeed, we might exactly parallel Mr. Darwin's case 
 by supposing him to be a student of astronomy 
 instead of a naturalist. We might suppose that he 
 was an indefatigable gatherer of facts, and that after 
 years of laborious research he had accumulated 
 enough ammunition to explode the theory that the 
 earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it once 
 in twenty-four hours. We might then confidently 
 expect him to write a book clsarly demonstrating 
 that the earth is round instead of flat, and that it 
 revolves on its own axis, from west to east, once in 
 twenty-four hours, etc. It is easy to imagine that 
 Mr. Darwin would at once be hailed as a great scien- 
 tist, and justly so, because his great array of facts 
 would be demonstrative of his thesis. But suppose 
 he labelled his book " The Origin of Planetary Mo- 
 tion," and claimed in it that the revolution of the earth 
 caused all the other planets to revolve and kept them
 
 234 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 in their orbits. Would scientists accept that hypoth- 
 esis in the absence of a single fact to prove it, 
 simply because he had proven some other proposi- 
 tion by a great array of facts? Well, that depends. 
 They most likely would if it was understood that the 
 unproven proposition would, if true, eliminate God 
 from the universe. In that case Mr. Huxley might 
 be depended upon to rise to the occasion and remark 
 that "it is true that Mr. Darwin has not cited a single 
 fact going to show that the revolution of the earth is 
 the cause of all planetary motion ; but he has proven 
 over and over again that the earth revolves; he 
 argues ingeniously, and I am prepared to believe 
 that somebody else will some day work up a fact that 
 will help Mr. Darwin out. In the mean time it is the 
 best hypothesis we have for proving that there is no 
 logical necessity for a Deity, and we had better stick 
 to it and wait for something to turn up." 
 
 I submit that the logic of the two cases runs on 
 parallel lines. It may be objected that I have sup- 
 posed an absurdity as my unproven proposition. My 
 reply is that it is no more absurd to suppose that the 
 revolution of the earth is the cause of all astronomical 
 phenomena than it is to suppose that a series of acci- 
 dents is the cause of all evolutionary development of 
 animal life on this planet. 
 
 This, then, is the logic of the situation as it is 
 shown upon the surface. Viewed from that stand- 
 point alone, it is difficult to imagine why such 
 logicians as Huxley should cling with such tenacity 
 to a hypothesis that admittedly has not one fact to 
 sustain it. But when the surface is penetrated, the 
 mystery is easily solved; for it is then found that
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. .235 
 
 the theory that natural selection accounts for the origin 
 of species thinly disguises a fundamental proposition 
 that is vital to atheism. That proposition is that 
 physical organism is antecedent to intelligence. The 
 converse of that proposition is that intelligence is 
 antecedent to physical organism. The latter is the 
 theistic proposition ; the former is the stronghold of 
 atheism. 
 
 A few words will make my meaning clear. I am 
 speaking, of course, f atheism versus theism solely 
 with reference to the issue as affected, pro and con, 
 by the facts of organic evolution. Viewed from that 
 standpoint, the fundamental issue resolves itself into 
 this question: 
 
 Does mind antedate physical organism? 
 
 This is the fundamental issue in a nutshell. And 
 it will readily be seen that to establish the affirmative 
 is to invest every step in the progressive develop- 
 ment of organic life with a profound theistic signifi- 
 cance ; for it leads us at once back to the very 
 beginning of organic life on this planet. It leads, in 
 other words, to the very heart of the great question ; 
 for, if the affirmative is true, mind antedated the 
 lowest unicellular organism and endowed it with life 
 and intelligence. If that is true, it necessarily in- 
 volves the theistic interpretation of the origin of 
 mind and life. If the negative is true, physical 
 organism necessarily originated mind and endowed it 
 with its wonderful powers. How? By an accidental 
 juxtaposition and subsequent union of certain chemi- 
 cal substances protoplasm was formed, and pro- 
 toplasm originated mind. This, in plain terms, is 
 the atheistic hypothesis of the origin of life and
 
 236 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 
 
 mind. " Science " seeks to soften the crude realism 
 of the naked truth, as thus expressed, by the use of 
 words of learned length and thundering sound ; and 
 hence the terms " abiogenesis " 1 (Huxley) and 
 " archebiosis " 2 (Bastian), both of which mean 
 spontaneous generation, and have been coined for 
 the purpose of giving a scientific air to the crude 
 doctrine that the beginning of life on this planet was 
 due to " accident " or "chance." 
 
 At this point I pause to remark upon the logical 
 attitude involved in this particular assumption, 
 that life and mind originated by spontaneous genera- 
 tion. That assumption is what is known in logic as 
 petitio principii ; and it is one of the most flagrant 
 examples on record of that most abominable of all 
 logical offences of which a logician can be guilty. 
 Petitio principii, in plain English, is " begging the 
 question." To beg the question is to take for 
 granted the matter in dispute, to assume without 
 warrant something that involves the point under 
 discussion. 
 
 Now, the matter in dispute between the atheistic 
 evolutionist and the theistic evolutionist is just this 
 question of spontaneous generation. Is that the way 
 life originated on this planet? Or was there an antece- 
 dent mind from which the primordial germ inherited 
 its intuitive, or instinctive, knowledge of the laws of 
 its being? That is the vital question ; and upon the 
 decision of that question largely depends the strength 
 of the argument for or against theism so far as it is 
 affected by the facts of organic evolution. 
 
 1 Discourses, Biological and Geological, Appletons' Am. ed., p. 229. 
 
 2 The Beginnings of Life.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 237 
 
 Now, the argument for spontaneous generation is 
 simply nil. It is pure, gratuitous assumption, with- 
 out a single fact to sustain it that is not a stronger 
 argument against it than for it. Thus, Haeckel, 1 in 
 speaking of that species of moneron discovered by 
 Huxley in 1868, called the Bathybius, has this to 
 say: 
 
 " The oldest monera originated in the sea by spontaneous 
 generation. This assumption is required by the demand of 
 the human understanding for causality." 
 
 The italics are mine. They were unnecessary for 
 the purpose of merely drawing the attention of the 
 reader to the logical fact that spontaneous generation 
 is pure assumption, without one solitary fact to sus- 
 tain it; for that may be taken pro confesso. Neither 
 is it necessary to emphasize the fact that such an 
 "assumption" is "required" by the exigencies of 
 the atheistic argument; for that is self-evident, 
 since there is, confessedly, nothing but assumption 
 suited to the atheistic purpose. But I wish to draw 
 particular attention to the monumental character of 
 the assumption that the logical dilemma of atheism 
 and " the demand of the human understanding for 
 causality " are synonymous expressions or logical 
 equivalents. I submit that the demand of the 
 human understanding for causality is not adequately 
 supplied by assumptions without evidence ; and I 
 protest against measuring human understanding by 
 atheistic standards. 
 
 Now, I am not exaggerating in the least when I 
 say that the strongest evidence of the correctness of 
 
 1 The Evolution of Man, p. 31.
 
 238 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the theory of spontaneous generation is given by 
 Professor Haeckel in the following sentence : " The 
 doctrine of spontaneous generation cannot be ex- 
 perimentally refuted." 1 Neither can the doctrine 
 that the moon is made of green cheese be experi- 
 mentally refuted. Yet no one but an atheist, in 
 desperate pursuit of a suitable hypothesis, would 
 assume that the inability to prove the negative of 
 a proposition constitutes valid evidence that the 
 proposition is true. 
 
 Logically, the inability to prove a negative possesses 
 no evidential value whatever in the absence of any 
 affirmative proof of a given proposition. The absence 
 of negative proof, however, possesses great signifi- 
 cance when facts exist which are confirmatory of the 
 hypothesis. In this case there are confessedly no 
 facts to prove the affirmative. These are the words 
 of the learned professor aforesaid : 
 
 " Neither can the theory of spontaneous generation be 
 experimentally proved unless great difficulties are overcome" * 
 (The italics are mine.) 
 
 Again we are reminded of Professor Huxley. Like 
 him, Professor Haeckel finds no existing proof of his 
 hypothesis, but thinks that maybe, sometime, some- 
 body will find a fact, or manufacture one, that will 
 help him out, provided he is able to overcome great 
 difficulties. In the mean time he speaks very con- 
 temptuously of those who have tried to produce 
 spontaneous generation " by means of the crudest 
 experiments." 3 Doubtless the learned professor 
 refers to Huxley's great discourse on " Biogenesis 
 
 1 Op. cit. p. 32. 2 Op. cit. p. 32. 8 Op. cit. p. 32.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPH. 239 
 
 and Abiogenesis," 1 in which he exposes the fallacies 
 of all previous writers who have adopted the hypoth- 
 esis of spontaneous generation. It may be, however, 
 that the " crude experiments " he refers to are Pro- 
 fessor Tyndall's 2 world-renowned series of experi- 
 ments which were conducted with a view to the 
 settlement of the vexed question. No one will accuse 
 the learned author of " The Prayer Gauge " of enter- 
 taining any violent prejudices, on religious grounds, 
 against the theory of spontaneous generation. Nev- 
 ertheless he spent years in exposing the fallacies 
 of those who imagined that their crude experiments 
 had forever settled the question affirmatively. The 
 history of experimental scientific investigation does 
 not record a series of more carefully conducted exper- 
 iments than that by which Professor Tyndall demon- 
 strated, as far as a negative can be proven, that life 
 cannot be generated from inorganic compounds, 
 spontaneously or otherwise. 
 
 I cannot close the discussion of this branch of 
 the subject without expressing my appreciation of 
 Professor Haeckel's candor in frankly admitting the 
 weakness of his argument at the crucial point. He 
 admits that the "assumption " of spontaneous gener- 
 ation is "required "-by the necessities of his argu- 
 ment. I agree with him. There is nothing left for 
 atheism but such an assumption at the point where 
 organic life commenced on this earth; for that is 
 the crucial point in the argument for and against 
 theism so far as the question is affected by the facts 
 
 1 Op. cit. p. 229. 
 
 * See Tyndall's " Fragments of Science," vol. ii., art. " Sponta- 
 neous Generation."
 
 240 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 of organic evolution. Life and mind, with all their 
 implications and potentialities, were spontaneously 
 generated from a fortuitous admixture of "inorganic 
 carbon compounds," 1 or they were inherited from 
 an antecedent life and mind. One or the other of 
 these propositions is true; for there is no middle 
 ground. Professor Haeckel finds that the exigen- 
 cies of the logical situation require him to assume 
 that the first is true. But he does so, not only 
 without one fact to sustain the assumption, but with 
 all the facts of experimental science arrayed against 
 it. As to the second of these alternative proposi- 
 tions, I shall attempt to show in future chapters that 
 all the salient facts of evolution conspire to demon- 
 strate its truth. In the mean time, as stated in the 
 commencement of this chapter, my object is to show 
 the logical attitude of atheism ; and it is thought 
 that it may now be safely assumed that Professor 
 Haeckel has been convicted of the " direct " petitio 
 prindpii. 
 
 Attention will now be directed once more to Mr. 
 Darwin and his immediate coadjutors with the view 
 of showing that they are guilty of the " indirect " 
 fctitio. That is to say, Mr. Darwin attempts by 
 indirection to reach the same point that Professor 
 Haeckel assumed directly as his major premise, 
 namely, spontaneous generation. 
 
 It has already been shown that the logical impli- 
 cation of the doctrine that natural selection origi- 
 nates species is that physical organism antedates 
 intelligence, that is, the intelligence that makes the 
 selection. The very term "selection" indicates 
 
 1 Op. cit. p. 31.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 241 
 
 that unmistakably. Selection presupposes some- 
 thing to select, and an intelligence capable of mak- 
 ing a discriminating choice. This applies, however, 
 to artificial selection more particularly, for in that 
 the intelligence of man makes the choice. But* in 
 natural selection, survival of the fittest is sup- 
 posed to take the place of intelligence. But in that 
 case there is also presupposed an antecedent organ- 
 ism capable of surviving; that is, endowed with 
 superior strength or sagacity, or something that 
 enables it to cope successfully with its environment 
 and survive less favored organisms. All this is 
 reasonable and logical as far as it goes, and it 
 accounts for a great many things. But as I have 
 already shown, by the aid of Mr. Huxley and others, 
 it does not account for the origin of species. It 
 does not account for the antecedent organism that is 
 superior in strength, sagacity, etc., and conse- 
 quently capable of surviving rival organisms. And 
 that is the crucial question. Mr. Darwin answers 
 this in effect by the one word "accident," other- 
 wise chance. Disguise it as you will, the Dar- 
 winian doctrine is the doctrine of chance; for he 
 offers no other explanation, and by his contemptu- 
 ous rejection of Lamarck's theory of appetency, he 
 rejects the only possible alternative hypothesis. In 
 other words, as I have already pointed out, he rejects 
 the only possible theory that implies a constant, 
 inherent force, resident in each organism, that 
 makes for progressive development. 
 
 The question is, Why do Darwin and his atheistic 
 followers reject that doctrine? Simply because it 
 presupposes that mind antedates physical organism, 
 
 16
 
 242 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 and that it is, in fact, the primary cause of organic 
 changes, and, consequently, of all evolutionary 
 development. Darwin was shrewd enough to foresee 
 that Lamarck's theory, carried to its legitimate con- 
 clusion, that is, carried back to the primordial 
 germ, would imply a mind antecedent to the first 
 unicellular organism; a mind capable of endowing 
 protoplasm with life and intelligence; a mind 
 capable of implanting in the primordial germ the 
 potentialities of manhood ; a mind capable of endow- 
 ing the lowest unicellular organism with such 
 faculties, powers, and limitations that progressive 
 development was a necessity of its being; in short, a 
 mind capable of originating the principle of organic 
 evolution, and establishing it as a lazv inherent in 
 the very nature of every sentient creature. In other 
 words, he saw that Lamarck's theory, carried to its 
 legitimate conclusion, inevitably led to a logical 
 demonstration of the theistic hypothesis. 
 
 Do I overestimate Mr. Darwin's logical acumen 
 in giving him credit for foreseeing the- ultimate out- 
 come of the theory of appetency ? Or, on the other 
 hand, do I do Mr. Darwin injustice in supposing 
 him to be moved by a desire to avoid the logical 
 conclusion that appetency leads to theism ? The 
 most attentive reader of Mr. Darwin's works proper 
 will probably fail to find any evidence whatever that 
 he was so moved, except in the general trend of the 
 Darwinian hypothesis. Mr. Darwin was too shrewd 
 a controversialist thus to expose the weakness of his 
 cause or the real animus of his works. Nevertheless, 
 there exists indubitable evidence that my estimate 
 of Mr. Darwin is neither exaggerated nor at fault.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 243 
 
 It has often been remarked that more can be 
 learned of the real man by the perusal of one of his 
 private letters to an intimate friend, than can be 
 divined by reading a dozen volumes of his published 
 works. This is eminently true of Mr. Darwin. 
 Accordingly we find in one of his letters to his 
 bosom friend, Sir Charles Lyell, his deliberate 
 opinion of Lamarck's theory, and his real reason for 
 the contempt with which he regarded it. In this 
 letter he was taking Sir Charles to task for refer- 
 ring to Mr. Darwin's views as a modification of 
 Lamarck's. He says : 
 
 " If this is your deliberate opinion, there is nothing to be 
 said, but it does not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my 
 grandfather before Lamarck, and others propounded the 
 obvious views that if species were not created separately 
 they must have descended from other species, and I can 
 see nothing else in common between the ' Origin ' and 
 Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is very 
 injurious to its acceptance, as it implies necessary progres- 
 sion, and closely connects Wallace's and my views with 
 what I consider, after two deliberate readings, as a wretched 
 book, and one from which (I well remember my surprise) 
 I gained nothing. 1 
 
 In a later letter to Sir Charles he speaks of 
 Lamarck's book as follows : 
 
 " As for Lamarck, as you have such a man as Grove with 
 you, you are triumphant ; not that I can alter my opinion 
 that to me it was an absolutely useless book" * (The italics 
 are mine.) 
 
 1 Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. ii. pp. 198, 199. 
 '* Ibid. p. 201.
 
 244 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 " A wretched book " " an absolutely useless 
 book" is the verdict of Mr. Darwin in re La- 
 marck's work on organic evolution. Why? Simply 
 because the latter's theory " implies necessary pro- 
 gression," is Mr. Darwin's answer. 
 
 If Mr. Darwin had written a volume on the subject 
 of his religious views as expressed or implied in his 
 doctrine of the origin of species, he could not have 
 more plainly and definitely said : " I object to La- 
 marck's theory of evolution because it implies a con- 
 stant force, inherent in every sentient creature and 
 arising from the wants and necessities of its exist- 
 ence, that compels progressive development. I ob- 
 ject to it because it implies that mind is antecedent 
 to organism and is endowed with a creative energy 
 equal to the production of organic structural changes. 
 I object to it because, carried to its legitimate con- 
 clusion, it implies that mind antedated the lowest 
 animal organism and impelled its structural devel- 
 opment. I object to it because it implies that evo- 
 lutionary development proceeds in obedience to a 
 law, and not to a series of accidents, and that it is, 
 therefore, a ' necessary progression.' I object to it 
 because ' necessary progression ' implies a definite 
 end in view a goal to be reached which, in turn, 
 implies design." 
 
 Does any one doubt that all this is implied in his 
 remarks contrasting Lamarck's doctrine with the 
 theory of natural selection? In other words, does 
 any one imagine that Darwin did not regard design 
 as implied in " necessary progression," as the very 
 antithesis of his doctrine of natural selection? If so, 
 we will again invite attention to some of Mr. Darwin's
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 245 
 
 private sentiments, to an extract from his autobiog- 
 raphy, written, not for publication, but for the eyes 
 of his immediate family. 
 
 Speaking of his early religious beliefs as contrasted 
 with those he afterwards entertained, he says : 
 
 " Although I did not think much about the existence of a 
 personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I 
 will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been 
 driven. The old argument from design in nature, as given 
 by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive,/a/'/f, 
 now that the law of natural selection has been discovered." * 
 (The italics are mine.) 
 
 I submit that words could not more plainly express 
 his belief that the doctrine of natural selection has 
 forever refuted the teleological argument, the doc- 
 trine of design, as evidenced in the works of nature. 
 This, in connection with his contemptuous rejection 
 of Lamarck's theory on the ground that it " implies 
 necessary progression," furnishes indubitable proof 
 that he regarded his own theory as the very antith- 
 esis of that of Lamarck. That is to say, Lamarck's 
 theory is that the mind within the organism is capable 
 of changing organic structure in response to neces- 
 sity; hence a mind antecedent to organism from the 
 beginning; hence a law, and hence " necessary pro- 
 gression" in accordance with an immutable law of 
 progressive development implanted in the primordial 
 germ. 
 
 These are the necessary logical implications of 
 Lamarck's theory, 2 and Mr. Darwin was not slow to 
 
 1 Life and Letters, vol. i. p. 278. 
 
 3 It must here be noted that such was not Lamarck's opinion ; for 
 he too was an atheist, and fondly imagined that his theory elimi-
 
 246 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 recognize the fact. Hence his indignant protest 
 against classing any theory that implies necessary 
 progression with his doctrine of chance. In his es- 
 timation, and surely no one has any right to gainsay 
 it, the two hypotheses are antithetical, antipodal. 
 On no other grounds than those I have stated could 
 they be so considered. One leads inevitably to 
 theism ; the other is crass atheism. 1 
 
 If Mr. Darwin had not been moved to this antago- 
 nism on the grounds thus indicated, he surely could 
 not have failed to see what Huxley evidently saw so 
 clearly, that the two theories are complementary of 
 each other; that, in fact, each is incomplete with- 
 out the other. It is not even pretended that nat- 
 ural selection explains the cause of those variations 
 of physical structure from which the selection is 
 made. Beyond the theory of chance all is in ob- 
 scurity so far as Mr. Darwin informs us. " Species," 
 he says, " originated by means of natural selection, 
 or through the preservation of the favored races 
 in the struggle for life." But he does not tell us 
 how the "favored races" came to be favored with 
 the structural advantages which enable them to com- 
 pete successfully in the struggle for life. "Chance" 
 is the only explanation offered by Mr. Darwin, and, 
 as we have already seen, he emphasizes it by his 
 
 nated God from the universe. Hence it was that, with that singular 
 want of logical acumen that seems to be congenite with certain types 
 of continental philosophers and scientists, he referred the origin of 
 life and mind to spontaneous generation. 
 
 1 Disguise the latter term as you will, or soften it into "agnosti- 
 cism," it still remains that an agnostic is simply an atheist with- 
 out the courage of his convictions; and Mr. Darwin's so-called reli- 
 gious views, as shown in his letters and autobiography, reveal the 
 fact that he was a living illustration of this definition.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 247 
 
 irascible hostility to any theory which implies a law 
 governing the subject-matter. If, therefore, chance 
 is not his theory of causation, as Mr. Huxley feebly 
 protests, then Mr. Darwin has no theory. In any 
 event, there is a hiatus in his hypothesis that cannot 
 be bridged by an accident or a series of accidents. 
 
 Now, there has never been a theory promulgated 
 that is capable of filling this hiatus by means of 
 a law of progressive development except Lamarck's. 
 I have stated above that Mr. Huxley saw this 
 clearly. I do not find this admission in the text 
 of his published works ; but I do find it in his pref- 
 ace to Appletons' American edition of " Darwin- 
 iana." This preface is dated April 7, 1893, eleven 
 years after Mr. Darwin's death, and but a few years 
 before his own demise. It may therefore be re- 
 garded as his final protest against the insufficiency 
 of his friend's theory, and a parting suggestion to 
 science as to the only hypothesis that can fill the 
 hiatus. He says : 
 
 "As I have said in the seventh essay, the fact of evolution 
 is sufficiently evidenced by paleontology ; and I remain 
 of the opinion expressed in the second, that until selective 
 breeding is definitely proved to give rise to varieties in- 
 fertile with one another, the logical foundation of natural 
 selection is incomplete. We still remain very much in the 
 dark about the causes of variation : the apparent inherit- 
 ance of acquired characters in some cases ; and the struggle 
 for existence within the organism, which probably lies at the 
 bottom of both these phenomena" (The italics are mine.) 
 
 I submit that, without specifically naming Lamarck 
 or his theory, Mr. Huxley could not have more
 
 248 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 pointedly declared his final opinion to be that 
 Darwin's theory of evolutionary development is in- 
 complete, and that Lamarck's is the only possible 
 complementary hypothesis. I therefore repeat, with 
 increased emphasis, that neither Lamarck's theory 
 nor Darwin's is complete without the other; but that 
 together they constitute a theory of evolutionary 
 development that is complete, coherent, and scien- 
 tific. It is complete because it leaves no hiatus to 
 be bridged by accident or chance. It is coherent 
 because the two factors are not inconsistent with 
 each other. It is scientific because it accounts for 
 all the facts and reveals a law of evolution under 
 which progression is necessary. 
 
 This alone would commend it to such a mind as 
 Huxley's, even though it does presuppose mind to 
 be antecedent to physical organism, and, indeed, the 
 primary cause of it. Unlike Mr. Darwin, Mr. Huxley 
 did not shrink from the acknowledgment of facts, 
 howsoever strongly they might militate against his 
 " agnostic " preconceptions. One of his ablest essays 
 was calculated to explode the fallacy of spontaneous 
 generation, 1 indispensable as it is to the atheistic 
 argument, as acknowledged by Haeckel. Nor could 
 he have failed to realize the trend of the facts of 
 nature toward theism when he finally declared his 
 conviction that " the struggle for existence within 
 the organism " lies at the bottom of all causes of 
 variation in species and the inheritance of acquired 
 characters. It was, in effect, a distinct declaration 
 that mind is not only antecedent to physical organism, 
 but that it is the efficient cause, the initial force, which 
 
 1 Discourses: Biological and Geological Essays, p. 229.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 249 
 
 lies at the bottom of all the phenomena of progressive 
 development of animal life on this planet. Moreover, 
 he could not have failed to see that the inevitable 
 logical, scientific induction is that mind is antecedent 
 to, and the efficient cause of, the primordial unicellu- 
 lar organism. 
 
 And this is the conclusion that Darwin so strenu- 
 ously sought to avoid. This is the conclusion that 
 Haeckel evaded by begging the question, by the 
 " direct" petitio. 
 
 And this brings us back to another singular 
 break in Professor Haeckel's logic, and one which 
 has a very important bearing upon this question. 
 In his anxiety to prove spontaneous generation, he 
 went back beyond the true cell, the amoeba, with a 
 nucleus ; that is, a physical organism with organs, in 
 search of animal life " standing on the very boundary 
 between organic and inorganic natural bodies." 1 
 
 Surely, if spontaneous generation accounts for the 
 origin of animal life, the evidence must be found on 
 this boundary line between the two realms. Has 
 Professor Haeckel found that evidence? Here is 
 what he has to say in concluding his argument, so 
 called, for spontaneous generation : 
 
 " In conclusion, I repeat, with emphasis, that it is only 
 in the case of monera of structureless organisms without 
 organs that we can assume the hypothesis of spontaneous 
 generation. Every differentiated organism, every organism 
 composed of organs, can only have originated from an un- 
 differentiated lower organism by differentiation of its parts, 
 and consequently by phylogeny. Hence, even in the pro- 
 duction of the simplest cell we must not assume the process 
 
 1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 50.
 
 2$0 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 of spontaneous generation. For even the simplest cell con- 
 sists of at least two distinct constituent parts : the inner 
 and firmer kernel (nucleus), and the outer and softer cell- 
 substance or protoplasm. These two distinct parts can 
 only have come into being by differentiation of the homo- 
 geneous plasson ofamoneron and ofacytode. It is for this 
 very reason that the natural history of monera is of the 
 highest interest ; for it alone can remove the principal 
 difficulties which beset the question of spontaneous. genera- 
 tion. The extant monera do afford us organless and 
 structureless organisms, such as must have originated by 
 spontaneous generation at the first beginning of organic 
 life upon the earth." * (The italics are mine.) 
 
 Now let us inquire what evidence Professor Haeckel 
 has really found to substantiate his hypothesis. In 
 the first place, it will be noted that he admits that the 
 moneron "alone " can help him out, and he is doubt- 
 less right; for if that fails, his doctrine of sponta- 
 neous generation, with all of its atheistic implications, 
 comes to naught. 
 
 The thing that he has really found, upon which 
 so much depends, is an " organless and structureless 
 organism." This might appear like a contradiction 
 in terms, since physical organism presupposes differ- 
 entiated organs or parts performing special functions 
 that are mutually dependent and essential ; but he 
 calls it an organism, either for the want of a better 
 term, or because it is endowed with a mind organism, 
 and is therefore capable of performing functions. Be 
 that as it may, let us fasten the " structureless " part 
 of the moneron beyond peradventure. 
 
 1 OP- cit. P. 33.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 251 
 
 "It might be argued," says the learned professor, "that 
 the monera are not really structureless, but that their organ- 
 ism is so minute that, in consequence of the inadequate 
 power of our magnifying glasses, it is invisible. This objec- 
 tion is, however, invalid, for by the experiment of feeding, 
 we can at any moment prove the entrance of foreign, 
 formed, small bodies into the different parts of the body of 
 the moneron, and that these are irregularly driven about in 
 all directions. At the same time we see that the change- 
 able network of threads, formed by the branching of the 
 protoplasmic threads and the coalescence of the confluent 
 branches, alter their configuration every moment ; just as 
 has long been known to occur in the thread-nets of the pro- 
 toplasm in the interior of the plant-cells. The monera 
 are, therefore, really homogeneous and structureless ; each 
 part of the body is every other part. Each part can absorb 
 and digest nourishment ; each part is excitable and sensi- 
 tive ; each part can move itself independently ; and, lastly, 
 each part is capable of reproduction and regeneration." * 
 
 We may now concede that Professor Haeckel has 
 demonstrated two very important facts: namely, (i) 
 the existence of an " organless and structureless or- 
 ganism ; " and (2) that this organism is endowed with 
 a mind 2 capable of exhibiting the active phenomena 
 of life, namely, nutrition, sensation, spontaneous move- 
 ment, reproduction, and regeneration. It is difficult, 
 however, to imagine upon what grounds he imagines 
 that he has helped his case. He has, in point of fact, 
 demonstrated the exact opposite to that which he 
 set out to prove. 
 
 1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. pp. 47, 48. 
 
 2 See Binet on "The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms," and Ro- 
 manes on " Mental Evolution in Animals," quoted in part i. of this 
 book, to prove mind in micro-organisms.
 
 252 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 He has demonstrated tJiat mind is antecedent to fliysi- 
 cal, structural organism. 
 
 He has shown us a mind that is capable of seiz- 
 ing upon a mass of homogeneous, structureless mat- 
 ter, and endowing it with life and intelligence; a 
 mind that is capable of moving and moulding at 
 will a structureless mass of protoplasm; a mind 
 that is capable of developing an organism from an 
 unorganized mass of primordial plasson ; a mind in 
 which all the faculties of the highest manhood 
 potentially exist. 
 
 Professor Haeckel would himself admit all these 
 propositions; for they are the essentials of the 
 general theory of organic evolution. But he has 
 not helped his theory of the spontaneous generation 
 of such a mind from inorganic matter. If he had 
 shown a structural organism antecedent to the mind 
 that phenomenally manifested itself through said 
 organism, he might, with some slight adumbrations 
 of reason, have claimed that the organism was spon- 
 taneously generated from inorganic matter, and that 
 said organism, in turn, might have generated the 
 mind. Aside from the inherent absurdity involved 
 in the supposition that a bit of slime has the power 
 to originate a man, Professor Haeckel might thus 
 have evolved a theory of spontaneous generation that 
 would at least have been an improvement upon any 
 that atheism has yet wrested from the facts of 
 organic evolution. But since he has demonstrated 
 that mind antedates structural organism, his theory 
 itself must be held to be a case of spontaneous 
 generation. 
 
 Professor Haeckel's theories, however, are of
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRh\CIFII. 253 
 
 small importance to the world when compared with 
 the one stupendous fact that he has thus made 
 known. Its bearing upon the whole question of the 
 processes of progressive development of organic life 
 is of transcendent interest and importance. It is 
 symbolical of the whole process. The development ( 
 of the amoeba from themoneron was a greater . 
 structural change tHarTwas the development of man j 
 from his simian ancestry, or the amphibian from 
 the fish, or__the bird from the crawling reptile. ' 
 But natural selection, in the Darwinian sense, can 
 by no possible stretch of the imagination be pre- 
 sumed to have entered as a dominating factor in 
 this, the first step in organic evolution. "The 
 struggle for existence within the organism" is the 
 only possible rational explanation. It is even more 
 absurd, if possible, to suppose that the primary in- 
 stinct that impelled this growth and development, 
 the primary instinct that impelled the moneron to 
 the acts of reproduction, nutrition, and locomotion, 
 had its origin in natural selection. And yet this is 
 the Darwinian doctrine, according to Romanes, of 
 the origin of primary instincts. 
 
 Now, the "struggle for existence within the 
 organism," or, in more specific terms, the creative 
 power or energy resident within the organism, hav- 
 ing thus been shown to be the initial force that 
 impelled the progressive development of the lowest 
 animal organisms, it must be presumed, until the 
 contrary is demonstrated, that the same initial 
 energy lies at the bottom of all progressive changes 
 of physical structure. 
 
 Haeckel was right when he went back to the very
 
 254 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 beginning of sentient life in search of the one great 
 primordial fact from which a broad, scientific gen- 
 eralization could be legitimately formulated. He 
 was right when he passed the amoeba by as pos- 
 sessing, in itself, no significance worth considering 
 except that which pertains to it as being the earliest 
 "structural organism with organs " known to science. 
 He was right when he went back to "the boundary 
 line between organic and inorganic natural bodies" 
 in search of a key to the great mystery surrounding 
 the origin of life. But, unfortunately, he was also 
 in search of proofs to sustain a preconceived hypothe- 
 sis; and hence he was blinded to the real signifi- 
 cance of the facts which he discovered. He did not 
 even recognize the bearing of the fact that mind 
 antedated organism upon the subsequent steps of 
 the process of organic development; although, to do 
 him entire justice, the trend of his argument did not 
 require him to consider that question. All that he 
 could derive from that stupendous fact was the lame 
 and impotent conclusion that somehow it "must" 
 be that mind and life are spontaneously generated 
 from inorganic matter. Otherwise, he tells us, we 
 have "no other resource but to believe in a super- 
 natural miracle" (sic). 1 
 
 Without stopping to discuss the subject of miracles, 
 natural or supernatural, I desire to indicate, briefly, 
 some of the inferences that seem to me to be logi- 
 cally derivable from what we have learned, by the 
 aid of Professor Haeckel, of the phenomenal mani- 
 festation of life and mind in the moneron. I have 
 already shown that the fact that mind in that animal 
 
 l Op. cit. p. 32.
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRIiVCIPII. 255 
 
 is antecedent to physical organism, and that it con- v ^. 
 trols and develops organism, is symbolical >of the -, 
 whole subsequent process of progressional develop- " 
 ment of physical organisms. 
 
 But that is not the most important inference to be 
 drawn from this phenomenon. It exemplifies that 
 control of the mind over the body which modern 
 science has done so much to verify and systematize 
 in various directions. The significant feature of^ 
 that control is that it does so in the entire absence 
 of structural organism; thus demonstrating the truth \ 
 of the hypothesis that the_ subjective mind the | 
 soul is immanent in the body aad not inherent in 
 it or in any oi its physical organs. In other words, ^ 
 it is -cymfcoKSal of the fact that the soul is notj 
 dependent for its existence upon physical organism, , 
 nor for its power upon the existence of physical ^ 
 organs. 7~L^T ^-^^j <k_ A*. 
 
 Again, it demonstrates the creative power of 
 
 . j. vta-^+tLo ir~g< u> 1-1 -4. 
 
 mind, and A symbolizes the power from which it 
 
 inherited its own potentialities, the power that 
 assembles cosmic matter and creates a universe. 
 
 Finally, the primordial method of reproduction, 
 as first revealed in the monera, namely, by fission or 
 segmentation* is demonstrative of the fact that a 
 completely organized mind can be segregated from 
 
 the parent mind without destroying 04 modifying 
 
 "v*_^-fh -"v^y, J> A,* ^-"i^^^y 
 the powers of either; thus symboifc^Bg the process 
 
 by which anvinfenitc number of individualized intelli- 
 gences may be segregated from 4 infinite, omni- 
 present intelligence. Thus a law not a miracle 
 a law of infinite reproduction is revealed, which 
 easily accounts for origin of life and mind, as well 

 
 256 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 as for all the subsequent steps in the process of 
 organic and mental evolution, including, of course, 
 the origin of species. 
 
 i The intelligent reader will understand that the 
 above propositions are provisionally assumed. Their 
 verification will depend upon whether they accord 
 with all the known facts of psychology and of organic 
 and mental evolution. That must be more fully set 
 forth in subsequent chapters. They are mentioned 
 here merely by way of contrast between the infer- 
 ences which atheism and theism respectively derive 
 from the phenomena exhibited in the primordial 
 
 I have now shown that the crucial question at 
 issue between atheism and theism, so far as the facts 
 of organic evolution are in evidence, is whether or 
 not mind antedates physical organism ; and that this 
 involves the question of spontaneous generation on 
 the one hand, and of natural selection on the other. 
 I have shown that Haeckel, in assuming sponta- 
 neous generation, has done so without one fact to 
 sustain his assumption 1 ; but that, on the contrary, 
 all the facts revealed by experimental science, 
 together with all the observable phenomena of the 
 beginning of organic life, tend to disprove his 
 hypothesis. I have shown that the question of spon- 
 taneous generation being a vital issue between 
 atheism and theism, Professor Haeckel, in postulat- 
 ing the affirmative without warrant of fact, has been 
 guilty of the logical offence known as the "direct" 
 petitio principii. I have also shown that Darwin, in 
 his insistence upon natural selection as being the 
 origin of species, has tacitly assumed the negative
 
 THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 
 
 of the proposition that mind antedates physical 
 organism. I have shown that he has done so in 
 defiance of all the facts of experimental science 
 (artificial selection), and in direct contravention to 
 all the observable phenomena of the beginning of 
 organic life (the moneron). 
 
 In thus illicitly assuming the thing to be proven, 
 without warrant of fact and in contravention of all 
 the facts, he has been guilty of the " indirect " 
 petitio ; or, as Mr. Herbert Spencer would term it, 
 the "disguised " petitio principiL 
 
 It will thus be seen that the atheistic theories of 
 the Darwinian evolutionists are all based upon pure 
 assumption/ It remains to prove that the facts of 
 evolution disprove the atheistic theories of evolu- 
 tionists. That is to say, the theories of Danvinian 
 evolutionists are atheistic ; their facts are theistic.
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST EARTHLY ANCESTOR. 
 
 The Doctrine of Heredity. All that is inherent in Man is what he 
 inherited from his Ancestry, Near and Remote. The Potentials 
 of Manhood, therefore, resided in the Moneron. Propositions 
 reduced to Syllogistic Form. The Two Primordial Instincts as 
 shown in the Moneron. The Prepotent Agency of Physical De- 
 velopment and of Human Progress. A Complete Law of Evo- 
 lution thus exemplified in the Monera. Thus Progress toward 
 Highest Development follows Lines of Least Resistance. Only 
 Good implanted in Man's Earliest Earthly Ancestor. What is 
 Instinct? Atheistic Theories considered. Herbert Spencer's 
 Reflex Action. Romanes vs. Spencer. Facts and not Phrases 
 to be considered. Analysis of the Mental Faculties of the Mone- 
 ron. Based on Haeckel's Statements. Sensation, Movement, 
 Nutrition, Reproduction, Regeneration, Intelligence. The Prom- 
 ise and Potency of a Human Soul. That Intelligence comprises 
 a Knowledge of the Primary Laws of Organic Life. Reflex 
 Action presupposes Subjective Intelligence. It is a Recognition 
 of Danger coupled with an Effort to avoid it. It never makes a 
 Mistake. The Simplest Manifestation of Instinct of Self-Preser- 
 vation. The Old Psychology at Fault. It knew Nothing of Sub- 
 jective Mind. All its Data from the Objective Mind. Phe- 
 nomena due to Sensation being prompted by Intelligence, it fol- 
 lows that the same is true of the Other Faculties. Mind of the 
 Moneron differs in no Essential from Subjective Mind of Man, 
 except in Degree. The same Terms define its Powers and Attri- 
 butes. Nor can Faculties of the Moneron be adequately described 
 except in Terms that define Omniscience. 
 
 / ~T~ N HE fundamental doctrine of all forms of the 
 * theory of evolution applied to biology is that 
 all living creatures, man included, descended from 
 a common ancestry. Science has demonstrated this 
 to be true by tracing the ancestry of man back 
 through numerous gradients to the very lowest forms
 
 MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 
 f! 
 
 of organic life. A corollary of this is that the facul- 
 ties of man constitute the sum of all his ancestral 
 faculties and instincts that have remained useful or 
 advantageous in the "struggle for life." In other 
 words, all that there is inherent in man is what he 
 has inherited from his ancestry, near and remote. 
 It follows that the potentialities of manhood resided 
 in the lowest sentient being, in the moneron. (f 
 
 This is, in brief, the doctrine of heredity held and 
 insisted upon by all evolutionists, from Darwin 
 down, who have discarded the doctrine of special 
 creations. And it was because science has been 
 able practically to demonstrate this doctrine to be 
 true, that the dogma of special creations of genera 
 and species has been yielded even by those who do 
 not admit that God has thereby been eliminated 
 from the universe. If science has demonstrated 
 anything more clearly than another within the pur- 
 view of biological research, it is that the faculties 
 of man were inherited from his lower ancestry; and 
 
 i-b-^-> c ' t * < -^~^ ***) 
 
 hence those faculties resided, potentially, 'in the 
 lowest unicellular organism. Scientists may differ 
 in regard to minor details relating to the specific 
 processes by which the physical organisms of genera 
 and species have been evolved; but the doctrine of 
 ^lity is common to all forms of the theory of 
 evolution applied to biology. 
 
 We are enabled, therefore, to start our argument 
 with a proposition that will not be disputed by any 
 scientific evolutionist : 
 
 The mental faculties of man are inherited from his 
 lower ancestors, beginning with the lowest iiniccllul.ir 
 organism.
 
 260 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 This general proposition cannot be successfully 
 controverted, and no evolutionist will make the 
 attempt. It involves another proposition, however, 
 which, as before remarked, is its corollary; namely, 
 that the faculties of manhood exist potentially in the 
 lowest form of animal life, to wit, the moneron. If 
 the first proposition is true, the second is logically 
 self-evident. But, lest some one might be in- 
 clined to doubt the soundness of the latter proposi- 
 tion, we will reduce it to the form of a syllogism, 
 thus: 
 
 a/r<HAf<-\f *< 
 
 1. An inherited faculty presupposes the existence 
 of that faculty, actually or potentially, in ,te an- 
 cestry, / ;RaF and-remoteJ(ffom wrtich the inheritance 
 was derived. j ^ll 
 
 2. Man inherited his faculties from. his (lower) an- 
 
 , . . , i >*-^f\^t * . , ..- 
 
 cestry, beginning with the lowest form of animal life. 
 
 Therefore the faculties of manhood resided poten- 
 tially in the lowest form of animal life. 
 
 We now have an undisputed and indisputable 
 proposition to start with, and one upon which I 
 shall hereinafter strongly insist. It must be re- 
 membered, however, that I have not, thus far in this 
 chapter, stated any new propositions. I am merely 
 trying to reduce to logical form and consistency the 
 fundamental truths which evolutionists have discov- 
 ered, and by which they have relegated the doctrine 
 of special creations to the realm of superstition. 
 These truths were, however, supposed to be atheistic 
 by those who first applied them; but I shall en- 
 deavor to show that, when carried to their legitimate 
 conclusion, they are the stronghold of scientific 
 theism.
 
 MIND OF MAWS EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 261 
 
 The reader will now recall the fact that, in Part 
 I. of this book, I have endeavored to strengthen the 
 proposition that the potentialities of the highest 1 X 
 order of manhood reside in the lower organisms. I 
 did so by showing that all the instincts of the lower 
 animals are essentially altruistic, save the one 
 instinct of self-preservation. All the others, begin- 
 ning with the instinct of reproduction, pertain to 
 future generations, first, to the perpetuation of the 
 species by reproduction, and secondly, to the care 
 and preservation of the young. I traced the devel- 
 opment of the altruistic instincts and impulses to 
 the higher civilization of man, showing that they 
 are infinitely stronger than the purely self-regarding 
 instinct of self-preservation. I pointed out the fact 
 that the altruistic instinct lies at the bottom of all 
 progressive development, physical, mental, moral, 
 and religious; and that in that sense it might be 
 termed the "evolutionary instinct," the constant, 
 effective energy, inherent in every sentient creature, 
 that makes for physical, mental, and moral progress, 
 for the higher civilization, for universal altruism. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to strengthen the final 
 view of Huxley, that the "struggle for existence 
 within the organism " lies at the bottom of all pro- 
 gressive physical development and of all structural 
 changes of physiological organism, by showing that 
 it is equally potent in mental, social, moral, and 
 religious evolution. And I have thus endeavored 
 to strengthen the proposition of the atheistic phi- 
 losophers, that the potentials of manhood reside in 
 the moneron, by showing that the first reproduc- 
 tive act of that "organism without organs" was
 
 262 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 C__ *- 
 
 essentially altruistic and progressive;' and that the 
 
 instinctive emotion that prompted the act, together 
 with its concomitant altruistic emotions, the love 
 of offspring and care for the young and helpless, as 
 manifested in all those actions and enterprises that 
 redound to the benefit of future generations, now 
 constitute the prepotent agency of human progress. 
 
 And the intelligent reader will not fail to note 
 that, in thus reclassifying the human instincts and 
 emotions by grouping all the instincts and impulses 
 that pertain to the well-being of future generations 
 into one class, which I have designated as "altru- 
 istic," thus leaving the purely self-regarding instinct 
 of self-preservation in a subordinate or subsidiary 
 class by itself, I have suggested a law of evolu- 
 tionary development the executive energy of which 
 inheres in that prepotent group of altruistic emo- 
 tions and impulses. But that of itself is not the 
 most significant part of it. Its real significance 
 consists in the fact that the same instincts and 
 faculties that cause the progressive development of 
 animal life and structural organism, also serve as 
 the prepotent energy that causes the progressive 
 development of mankind toward the higher civiliza- 
 tion on lines leading to the ultimate goal of uni- 
 versal altruism. Nor is this all ; for, if this 
 hypothesis is the true one, it follows that ^evolu- 
 tionary progress, physical, mental, moral, and reli- 
 gious, follovys the lines of least resistance in nature. 
 In other words, the natural tendency of all the 
 instincts, except that of self-preservation, is altru- 
 istic, that is, other-regarding; and the only task 
 imposed upon mankind is that of regulating those
 
 MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 263 
 
 instincts, including that of self-preservation, and 
 directing their energies into normal channels. This 
 is a far different task from that imposed by the old 
 philosophies which regarded all the natural im- 
 pulses of man as evil and only evil; which regarded 
 the so-called "animal propensities" as something 
 to be fought and annihilated, instead of regulated, 
 restrained, purified, elevated, and legitimated. It 
 gives to man a far different status in the moral uni- 
 verse from that assumed by the egoistic philosophy 
 of Mr. Herbert Spencer, which assumes that all 
 human acts are prompted by selfishness; and that 
 those of the purest altruism are but selfishness in a 
 slightly less offensive form, but still selfish. In 
 short, the old philosophies imposed upon man the 
 task of laboring upon the lines of greatest resistance 
 in nature whenever he sought to elevate himself or 
 benefit mankind. Whereas the hypothesis that I 
 have ventured to advance presupposes that good and 
 only good was implanted in the primordial germ. 
 And hence I have ventured to assent to and to em- 
 phasize the doctrine of the atheistic evolutionists, 
 that the potentials of manhood, the loftiest man- 
 hood, are resident in the lowest form of animal life. 
 It will now be in order to inquire what evidence 
 is to be found in the mental phenomena of the lower 
 orders of animal life to justify such a stupendous 
 and far-reaching generalization. To that end we 
 will, partly by way of recapitulation, group those 
 phenomena which are demonstrative of the posses- 
 sion, by the lower animals, of faculties and powers 
 some of which, by development alone, may reach the 
 highest possible grades of human intelligence.
 
 264 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 Let us begin with the intelligence possessed by 
 the lowest unicellular organism. That intelligence 
 is designated by the name of "instinct;" and by 
 most of the atheistic philosophers it is thus dis- 
 missed as possessing no special significance beyond 
 the fact that it is a curious phenomenon common to 
 the lower organisms. Their object, in fact, seems 
 to be to avoid the obvious significance of the phe- 
 nomena; and hence they dismiss it by a resort to the 
 usual petitio principii. This, as I have already 
 pointed out, is the invariable method of atheistic 
 reasoning whenever its votaries are confronted with 
 a phenomenon that clearly points to a theistic con- 
 clusion. Hence they have resorted to the use of 
 such words and phrases as "irritability" and "reflex 
 action," to account for the obvious intelligence of 
 the lower organisms. Thus, Mr. Herbert Spencer 
 classes all reflex action as instinct; and then, pre- 
 sumably, in order to show that it is a poor rule that 
 will not work both ways, he coolly informs us that 
 all instinct is "reflex action." To do him entire 
 justice, however, it must be stated that he does 
 not confine himself to this formula; for when he 
 comes across a particularly hard nut to crack, 
 that is to say, when he comes to an instinctive 
 action that obviously is not a "reflex action," he 
 ably gathers it in under the term " compound reflex 
 action." 
 
 I will not undertake the superfluous task of refut- 
 ing a proposition so obviously unsound ; for Romanes 
 has ably performed that task in his " Mental Evolu- 
 tion in Animals," to which the reader is referred. I 
 will only pause to remark that Mr. Spencer's phi-
 
 MIXD OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 26$ 
 
 losophy of instinct justifies the well-worn definition 
 of metaphysics, namely : " Metaphysics consists in the" 
 invention of terms that have no meaning, and then 
 explaining things by those terms." 
 
 As Romanes has clearly shown, though perhaps in 
 milder and more round-about phraseology than I am 
 able to employ, the terms " reflex action " and " com- 
 pound reflex action " are absolutely meaningless 
 when applied to the great bulk of instincts with 
 which animals and human beings are endowed. 
 
 But what is instinct? This question can be an- 
 swered intelligently only by confining ourselves to 
 facts and phenomena, and divesting ourselves of the 
 prejudices engendered by the use of those so-called 
 " scientific " terms by which the whole subject has 
 been so ably obscured. Especially do we need to 
 divest ourselves of the impressions engendered by 
 the use of terms that in themselves imply a theory 
 of causation, such as " reflex action," whether simple 
 or compound, " irritability," " inspiration," " special 
 providence," "special creation," and "spontaneous 
 generation." In other words, let us examine the 
 facts of instinct, and then see if we can find a defini- 
 tion that will fit the facts. When that is done, we 
 may look for a theory of causation that will fit the 
 facts, not before. That is to say, let us treat the 
 question by the inductive method, reasoning from 
 facts to the general law underlying them, and not 
 by first formulating a disputable postulate and then 
 distorting the facts to fit the assumed theory of 
 causation. Now, what are the facts, the primordial 
 facts, of instinct? I begin with the lowest animal 
 organism, for it is at the very threshold of the or-
 
 266 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 ganic world that we must find, if anywhere, the facts 
 that will reveal the origin of life. 
 
 Again, we will accept the facts from atheistic 
 sources. If the reader will now re-examine the 
 chapter in Part I. in which the psychic life of micro- 
 organisms is discussed, he will more fully appreciate 
 the point we are about to examine. In the mean 
 time it will be sufficient to mention the salient fea- 
 tures of what we have previously learned. Haeckel 
 tells us that the moneron that wonderful "or- 
 ganism without organs," that stands upon the very 
 threshold of the organic world is endowed with the 
 faculty of sensation. That is to say, it is capable of 
 feeling, for it reacts to stimuli. It shrinks from con- 
 tact with that which will injure it. In other words, 
 it not only has sensation, but it is endowed with the 
 instinct of self-preservation, and instantly adopts 
 the only means of self-protection within its power. 
 It adapts means to ends; and this, according to 
 Romanes and Binet, is indubitable evidence of 
 intelligence. 
 
 Haeckel also tells us that the moneron seeks and 
 obtains nourishment; and, having found it, it per- 
 forms the functions of digestion and assimilation. It 
 can be fed artificially, and the process of digestion 
 can be plainly seen under the microscope. The 
 food, when colored for that purpose, can be seen to 
 enter the body indifferently at any and all points, 
 and to move from one part of the body to another, 
 "irregularly driven about in all directions;" 1 thus 
 demonstrating at once the total absence of physical 
 organism, and the power which is resident in its 
 
 1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 47.
 
 MIXD OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 267 
 
 mind to sustain life by adapting means to that end. 
 Moreover, Binet tells us that unicellular organisms 
 exercise the power of choice between that which is 
 nutritious and that which is inert or deleterious; all 
 of which constitute further proofs of intelligence, 
 further demonstrations of the existence of a mind 
 organism. 
 
 Again, Haeckel informs us that his moneron is 
 endowed with powers of locomotion. That is to say, 
 it can move from place to place by means of impro- 
 vised limbs (pseudopodia) which it projects at will 
 from any part of the body. 1 It is by means of these 
 improvised limbs that it moves about in search of 
 nourishment; and Professor Gates has demonstrated 
 that it has a memory of the direction in which food 
 may be obtained, and that it can be educated to return 
 to the place where it has once found food to its lik- 
 ing. This, as Ribot has clearly shown, is indubitable 
 proof of consciousness. 2 
 
 Lastly, Professor Haeckel tells us that the moneron 
 reproduces itself asexually, that is, by fission or 
 segmentation. The particular species which we have 
 been considering, namely, the Protamceba, after it 
 has attained a certain size, simply separates into two 
 pieces. "Thus, in the simplest possible way, two 
 new individuals proceed by self-division from one 
 quite simple individual." 8 
 
 And thus was performed the first act of primordial 
 altruism. Thus was taken the first step in the pro- 
 
 1 It should be noted here that there are many different genera and 
 species of monera; but the essentials above enumerated are the 
 same in all. 
 
 2 See " Diseases of Personality," p. 6. 
 8 Op. cit. p. 48.
 
 268 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 cess of organic evolution, the first advance in the 
 phylogenetic series that culminated in man. Thus 
 were exhibited for the first time in the organic 
 history of the earth all the phenomena of life, of 
 sensation, movement, nutrition, reproduction, and 
 intelligence, the promise and potentialities of a 
 human soul. 
 
 These are the facts, these the phenomena, relating 
 to the instincts of the primordial germ. Now, let us 
 for the moment ignore all the " set phrase of speech " 
 with which theorists have befogged the question, 
 especially all those words and phrases which imply 
 preconceived theories of causation. 
 
 Looking the simple facts squarely in the face, 
 then, what do we find ? 
 
 First, a bit of protoplasma that is alive. It is a 
 living, moving entity. It is an animate creature, and 
 hence is endowed with a mind ; for having a mind is 
 the distinction between the animate and the inanimate 
 in all nature. 
 
 Secondly, we have found a sentient creature that 
 does things ; and voluntary action is a crucial dis- 
 tinction between the animate and the inanimate. 
 
 Thirdly, we have found an animate, sentient crea- 
 ture that knows something. We know that it knows 
 something because it does something; and the only 
 criterion by which we can judge of what or how 
 much it knows, is by observation of what it does. 
 If therefore we find that this creature invariably 
 does what reason would approve, we must conclude 
 that its intelligence, limited though it may be, is of a 
 very superior quality. 
 
 Fourthly, we find that this creature invariably does
 
 MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 269 
 
 that which reason would approve. Thus, (i) it 
 never rushes into danger, but avoids it if possible. 
 (Reaction to sensory stimuli.) (2) It does not lie 
 inert, but moves about in search of food by means 
 of improvised limbs. (Spontaneous movement.) 
 (3) Having found food, it does not reject it, but 
 absorbs it, rejecting only that which is 
 What it has absorbed it digests and assimilates. 
 (Nutrition.) (4) Finally, having attained maturity, it no 
 longer confines its energies to purely selfish acts ; but 
 it reproduces itself, and thus provides for the perpetu- 
 ation of its species, provides for future generations, 
 for evolutionary progress. (Reproduction.) 
 
 In short, the moneron exercises all the primary 
 functions and produces all the primary phenomena 
 of organic life, sensation, movement, nutrition, and 
 reproduction. And it does so in a way that presup- 
 poses intelligence, for it adapts means to ends, and 
 exercises the power of choice ; which, as we have 
 already learned from Binet, Romanes, Gates, Ribot, 
 and others, is the crucial test of intelligence. 
 
 Now, to reduce what we have learned from the 
 actions of the moneron to its lowest terms, we must 
 conclude : 
 
 1. That the precision with which the moneron 
 performs its functions, and the invariably beneficent 
 results which follow, are demonstrative that its acts 
 are in accordance with a law, and that that law is the 
 primary law of organic life. 
 
 2. That the intelligence with which the moneron 
 is endowed consists of a knowledge of the primary 
 law of organic life. 
 
 I have shown in previous chapters that instinct and
 
 2/0 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 intuition are identical, differing only in degree and 
 subject-matter, and that they both have to do exclu- 
 sively with general laws or first principles. The con- 
 clusion, therefore, that the moneron is endowed with 
 a knowledge of the primary laws of organic life not 
 only accords with what we know ot instinct or intui- 
 tion in general, but it is in strict accordance with the 
 observable phenomena in the life of the moneron. 
 
 We are prepared, therefore, to define instinct, 
 as we find it existing in the lowest form of animal 
 life, as the power of immediate perception or appre- 
 hension of the essential laws of its being; this power 
 being antecedent to and independent of reason, in- 
 struction, or experience. 
 
 Now, whatsoever may be one's theory of causation, 
 or his hypothesis as to the origin of life, whether it 
 be spontaneous generation or special creation, it can- 
 not be denied that the facts of the organic history 
 of the moneron justify this definition of its instincts. 
 This conclusion cannot be evaded without plunging 
 into the realms of the supernatural and setting up the 
 hypothesis of perpetual miracle. That is to say, the 
 monera are obviously impelled to action by an intel- 
 ligent energy or force ; and this intelligence is either 
 resident within the organism or it is an extraneous 
 force. As the latter would imply a perpetual mira- 
 cle, science is driven to accept the other hypothesis 
 in order to keep within the domain of natural law. 
 Even Mr. Herbert Spencer's doctrine of reflex action 
 does not militate against the theory of an intelligent 
 energy within ; for in its simplest form, that of reac- 
 tion to peripheral stimuli, reflex action presupposes 
 a subjective intelligence within the organism, an
 
 MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 2/1 
 
 intelligence that is endowed with the instinct of self- 
 preservation. In other words, reaction to stimuli is 
 neither more nor less than shrinking from danger, 
 an act which is necessarily prompted by an intelli- 
 gence which apprehends or perceives an imminent 
 danger; an intelligence which instantly adapts means 
 to ends by adopting the only course by which it can 
 avert the threatened injury, namely, by moving itself 
 away from the danger point. If the act were not 
 prompted by intelligence, it would be just as apt to 
 move toward the danger point as from it. v In this 
 regard the action of the moneron differs in no respect 
 from that of the most highly organized human being. 
 The latter, however, employs a nervous organism, 
 the afferent nerves conveying the impulse to a nerve 
 centre, whence it is reflected back as an efferent 
 impulse, independently of the volition of the objective 
 mind. 
 
 It is at this point that the old psychology fails to 
 account correctly for reflex action. Knowing nothing 
 of the subjective mind, as distinguished from the 
 mind of which the brain is the organ ; and realizing 
 that the efferent impulse is independent of volition, 
 that is, the volition of the objective mind, the in- 
 ference was that, somehow, reflex action is not 
 prompted by intelligence. Whereas, in point of fact, 
 it is prompted by the highest intelligence that man 
 possesses, namely, that of the subjective mind, the 
 mind of instinct or intuition, the mind that is ever 
 alert for the preservation of the body. Reflex 
 action, therefore, as manifested in reaction to a 
 peripheral stimulus, as when a limb is pricked by 
 a sharp instrument, is the simplest phenomenal
 
 272 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation. 
 It is manifested alike in the moneron and in man, 
 for it is prompted by the same subjective intelligence. 
 There is this difference, however : in the moneron 
 the act is performed independently of physical 
 organs, which is another demonstrative proof that 
 the subjective mind antedated physical organism. 
 
 Having shown that the phenomena due to sensation 
 in the moneron are prompted by intelligence, we 
 need not produce arguments to show that all its 
 other functions are prompted by the same intelli- 
 gence; for two of the other three functions are 
 manifestations of the same instinct, namely, that 
 of self-preservation. That is to say, three of the 
 four classes of the phenomena of organic life, as 
 manifested in the primordial germ, namely, those 
 of sensation, movement, and nutrition, are all due 
 to that instinct. The phenomenon of reproduction, 
 on the other hand, is due to a totally different 
 instinct, as I have hereinbefore pointed out. I have 
 ventured to designate it as the " evolutionary in- 
 stinct" or the ''altruistic instinct." It is entitled 
 to the first designation because it constitutes that 
 powerful, creative energy that lies at the bottom 
 of all progressive physical development of animal 
 life. It is entitled to the second designation because 
 it prompts to acts that pertain exclusively to future 
 generations, and is therefore the basis of all the 
 altruistic emotions. 
 
 And this is why I have felt compelled to define 
 instinct, as we find it manifested in the lowest form 
 of animal life, in the general terms I have employed. 
 That is to say, the instinct of the moneron is not
 
 MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 2/3 
 
 merely the instinct of self-preservation, although 
 it includes that instinct; but it also includes that 
 which is in a sense the exact opposite. In a word, 
 it includes that energy that lies at the bottom of all 
 evolutionary development, physical, mental, moral, 
 and spiritual. It is upon this hypothesis alone that 
 evolutionists can logically predicate the doctrine of 
 the descent of man from the moneron. It is upon 
 these facts alone that they can logically assume 
 that the potentials of manhood are resident in the 
 moneron. 
 
 The instincts of the moneron cannot therefore be 
 adequately defined in terms that will not apply to 
 the highest intuitions of man ; for if man is descended 
 from the moneron, it follows that his highest intuitions 
 are the result of the development of identical faculties 
 existing inchoate in that ancestor. 
 
 Moreover, tJie instincts of the moneron cannot be 
 adequately defined or described except in terms that 
 are also definitive of omniscience. 
 
 We find, therefore, in the lowest unicellular organ- 
 ism known to science, psychical faculties that by 
 development become the highest mental attributes 
 of man, and by extension to infinity, the highest 
 conceivable attributes of an Omniscient Deity. y 
 
 us-* *^i,*J 
 
 18
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OTHER GODLIKE POTENTIALS IN THE MIND OF THE 
 MONERON. 
 
 Endowed with Creative Powers. The Real "Origin of Species." 
 HaeckePs Admissions. Its Development from the Undifferen- 
 tiated Moneron to the Differentiated Amoeba. The Energy 
 "from within." The Greatest Single Step in the Process of 
 Evolution. The Key to the Whole Mystery. The Creative 
 Power of Mind. We must infer that all other Changes in 
 Organism were due to the same Creative Energy. It is the 
 Constant Force behind all Progressive Development. Huxley 
 on the Innate Creative Powers of Animal Intelligence. The 
 Growth and Development of the Salamandrine Egg. The Power 
 of the Water Newt to reproduce Lost Limbs. These Poweis 
 Typical Examples of Creative Energy. They are Nature's 
 Divine Revelations. This Creative Power by Extension to 
 Infinity would mean Omnipotence. Its Knowledge of the 
 Essential Laws of its Being by Extension would mean Omni- 
 science. Its Power is that of Mind over Matter. It is, then, 
 essentially Godlike, differing only in Degree. The Tendency 
 of Science to name Things in the Absence of an Explanation. 
 The Popular Belief that Names do explain Things. Illustrative 
 Examples. The Theory of the Unconscious. Hence Learned 
 Talk of the Unconscious Acts of the Lower Animals. All the 
 Facts of Experience show that the Subjective Mind of Man is 
 most intensely Conscious. We have a Right to infer that the 
 same is True of Animals. The same Laws prevail. Subjective 
 " Unconsciousness," therefore, is Objective Ignorance of the 
 States of Subjective Consciousness. The Same is True of our 
 Knowledge of Consciousness of Lower Animals. Instinctive 
 Acts are therefore presumably Conscious Acts. The Conscious- 
 ness of a Godlike Mind. Whence came it ? There are but 
 Two Hypotheses. One is Spontaneous Generation; the Other is 
 Divine Inheritance. One is Atheism; the Other is Theism.
 
 OTHER POWERS OF THE MONERON. 2?$ 
 
 One is without a Fact to support it, it rests upon Pure 
 Assumption, a Petitio Prindpii, Gross and Palpable ; the 
 Other will be discussed in the Ensuing Chapters. 
 
 I HAVE now shown that the mental faculties with 
 which the lowest unicellular organism is endowed 
 contain the promise and potency of a human soul. 
 I have thus confirmed the essential hypothesis of 
 evolution, which is that man descended from the 
 primordial germ, and hence, ex hypothesi, in the 
 primordial germ resided the potentialities of man- 
 hood. In doing this I have been careful to draw 
 upon the acknowledged authorities on the subject 
 of evolution for my facts; and I have given to 
 those facts the only interpretation that can possibly 
 confirm their fundamental hypothesis. I have also 
 shown that the only legitimate interpretation of their 
 facts not only confirms the theory that the poten- 
 tialities of manhood reside in the primordial germ, 
 but that the quality of mind exhibited in man's x 
 remotest earthly ancestor is essentially godlike, 
 differing from Omniscience only in degree, and, 
 not in kind. 
 
 It remains to inquire what other godlike powers 
 inhere in the mind with which the moneron is en- 
 dowed. And, in doing so, let us continue the policy 
 of ignoring all preconceived theories of causation, 
 looking only to the facts for guidance to conclusions. 
 
 The first question to be considered is, What powers 
 might we reasonably expect to find in a being that 
 is invested with such transcendent potentialities as 
 science has found the moneron to be clothed withal? 
 We have already seen that that being is invested with 
 the potentialities of manhood; nay, that its intelli-
 
 276 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 gence is godlike in kind. Now, if it is true, as 
 Lamarck holds, and as Huxley believes, that the 
 " struggle for life within the organism " lies at the 
 bottom of all physiological changes incident to pro- 
 gressive development of animal life on this planet, 
 we may reasonably expect to find evidences of 
 the fact in the lowest unicellular organisms. Again, 
 if it is true that an energy inheres in the mental 
 organism of animals that is equal to the production 
 of physiological changes, or, in other words, that is 
 able to originate new species, the power can be 
 designated by no words less significant than creative 
 energy. f ^^ SfrK * ^^ / 
 
 Let us, then, call Professor Haeckel to the stand 
 once more, and inquire how the second stage was 
 reached in the process of organic evolution. He 
 says : 
 
 " Next to the simple cytod-bodies of the monera, as 
 the second ancestral stage in the human pedigree (as in 
 that of all other animals), comes the simple cell, that most 
 undififerentiated cell-form, which, at the present time, still 
 leads an independent solitary life, as the amreba. For 
 the first and oldest process of organic differentiation, which 
 affected the homogeneous and structureless plasson-body of 
 the monera, caused the separation of the latter into two dif- 
 ferent substances : an inner firmer substance, the kernel, or 
 nucleus ; and an outer, softer substance, the cell-substance, 
 or protoplasma. By this extremely important separative 
 process, by the differentiation of the plasson into nucleus 
 and protoplasm, the organized cell originated from the 
 structureless cytod, the nucleated from the non-nucleated 
 plastid. That the cells which first appeared upon the earth 
 originated in this manner, by the differentiation of the
 
 OTHER POWERS OF THE Af ONE RON. 277 
 
 monera, is a conception which in the present condition of 
 histological knowledge seems quite allowable ; for we can 
 even yet directly observe this oldest histological process of 
 differentiation in ontogeny." l 
 
 Is it too much to say that here we have a key 
 to the whole mystery with which the question of 
 organic evolution is invested? Here is the first 
 tangible evidence we have of the creative power of 
 mind. And here, most certainly, is the key to the 
 mystery that has been woven about the origin of 
 species. For the amoeba is the first distinct species 
 that had its origin in another and an antecedent 
 species. Moreover, as I have before remarked, the 
 step from the moneron to the amoeba was the great- 
 est single step that has ever been taken in organic 
 history. For the difference between any organism 
 and no organism is necessarily greater than the 
 difference between any two successive or contiguous 
 organisms in the phylogenetic series. 
 
 Now, the question is, What was the power that pro- 
 duced the change from the moneron to the amoeba, 
 and where does it reside? For there must have 
 been some form of energy behind so vast a change, 
 unless, indeed, we are content to relegate the whole 
 question to the domain of chance or of miracle. As 
 natural selection cannot be supposed to figure in the 
 case, we must dismiss the hypothesis of chance as 
 untenable. As science cannot admit the hypothesis 
 of miracle, we are compelled to look elsewhere for 
 a solution of the problem. 
 
 Now, there are two things that are self-evident 
 
 1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 50.
 
 2?8 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 in regard to the energy that lies at the bottom 
 of the change from the moneron to the amoeba: 
 (i) we know that this energy exists; and (2) we 
 know that it is moved by intelligence. That is to 
 say, it is an intelligent force. We know that much 
 because it constantly does that which reason would 
 approve. Its efforts are constantly directed toward 
 the accomplishment of some specific, beneficent end. 
 In short, it adapts means to ends, which is the test 
 of intelligence as distinguished from chance. 
 
 We also know that this intelligent energy is either 
 resident within the organism or that it is an extrane- 
 ous force. As the latter implies a miracle, we are 
 driven to the conclusion that an intelligent, creative 
 energy is resident within the lowest animal organism ; 
 and that this intelligent, creative energy originated 
 the first species of animals known to science as hav- 
 ing a physical organism. 
 
 From this primordial fact we have a right, until 
 the contrary is proven, to infer that all subsequent 
 changes of physiological organism are brought about 
 by the same agency. That is to say, we have a right 
 to infer that the intelligent, creative energy that has 
 been shown to exist in the moneron, that energy 
 which Lamarck designates as " appetency," and 
 Huxley describes as " the struggle for life within the 
 organism^? is the constant force, the impellent energy, 
 that is the efficient cause of all progressive develop- 
 ment of animal life ; that is, in short, the origin of 
 species. 
 
 Does any one doubt the existence of creative 
 energy within the animal organism? If so, let him 
 observe some of the commonest phenomena within
 
 OTHER POWERS OF THE M ONE RON. 279 
 
 the range of observation of everybody, phenomena 
 so common, indeed, that few pause to reflect upon 
 their profound significance. For instance, let him 
 study the development of the chick from the egg or 
 the plant from the seed. Apropos of this, Professor 
 Huxley, in speaking of heredity and the physiology 
 of reproduction, has this to say: 
 
 " The student of Nature wonders the more and is 
 astonished the less, the more conversant he becomes with 
 her operations ; but of all the perennial miracles she offers 
 to his inspection, perhaps the most worthy of his admiration 
 is the development of a plant or of an animal from its 
 embryo. Examine the recently laid egg of some common 
 animal, such as a salamander or a newt. It is a minute 
 spheroid in which the best microscope will reveal nothing 
 but a structureless sac, enclosing a glairy fluid, holding 
 granules in suspension. But strange possibilities lie dor- 
 mant in that semi-fluid globule. Let a moderate supply of 
 warmth reach its watery cradle, and the plastic matter un- 
 dergoes changes so rapid, and so purposelike in their 
 succession, that one can only compare them to those 
 operated by a skilled modeller upon a formless lump of 
 clay. As with an invisible trowel, the mass is divided 
 and subdivided into smaller and smaller portions, until it is 
 reduced to an aggregation of granules not too large to build 
 withal the finest fabrics of the nascent organism. And, 
 then, it is as if a delicate finger traced out the line to be 
 occupied by the spinal column, and moulded the contour 
 of the body ; pinching up the head at one end, the tail at 
 the other, and fashioning flank and limb into due sala- 
 mandrine proportions, in so artistic a way that, after watch- 
 ing the process hour by hour, one is almost involuntarily 
 possessed by the notion that some more subtle aid to vision
 
 280 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 than an achromatic would show the hidden artist, with his 
 plan before him, striving with skilful manipulation to perfect 
 his work. 
 
 " As life advances, and the young amphibian ranges the 
 waters, the terror of his insect contemporaries, not only are 
 the nutritious particles supplied by its prey, by the addition 
 of which to its frame growth takes place, laid down, each 
 in its proper spot, and in due proportion to the rest, as to 
 reproduce the form, the color, and the size, characteristic of 
 the parental stock ; but even the wonderful powers of repro- 
 ducing lost parts possessed by these animals are controlled 
 by the same governing tendency. Cut off the legs, the tail, 
 the jaws, separately or all together, and, as Spallanzani 
 showed long ago, these parts not only grow again, but the 
 redintegrated limb is formed on the same type as those 
 which were lost. The new jaw, or leg, is a newt's, and never 
 by any accident more like that of a frog." 1 
 
 I have quoted this passage from Huxley for two 
 reasons : First, because evolutionists rightly hold that 
 the laws governing the development of the germinal 
 cell are the same as those governing the development 
 of the primordial germ. That is to say, the onto- 
 genetic history of the germinal cell in many cases is 
 a reproduction of the salient features of the phylo- 
 genetic history of the primordial germ. The creative 
 energy, therefore, the operations of which may be 
 observed under the microscope in the one case, is 
 illustrative of powers which are exercised in the other. 
 Secondly, the reproduction of lost limbs by the water 
 newt is an example, which each may observe for him- 
 self, of that creative power, resident within the animal 
 organism, that is the source and agency of all organic 
 
 1 Darwiniana, p. 29 et stq.
 
 OTHER POWERS OF THE MONERON. 28 1 
 
 growth and development. JFacts are Nature's divine 
 ^ejyelations ; and she never fails to give us patent 
 exemplifications of her latent powers. 
 
 I have now shown that the intelligence resident in 
 the lowest form of animal life is of such a nature that, 
 by extension to infinity, it could be characterized by 
 no word but " omniscience." And I have shown that 
 this same intelligence is invested with creative powers 
 such as, by enlargement to infinity, would constitute 
 omnipotence. 
 
 Its knowledge is of the essential laws of its being; 
 and this knowledge is antecedent to reason, experience, 
 or instruction. It is intuitive knowledge; but it is 
 perfect, for it never makes a mistake. What more 
 can be said of omniscience? 
 
 Its power is that of mind over matter. It assembles 
 matter and creates a structural organism. What 
 more can be said of omnipotence than that it as- 
 sembles matter and creates a structural universe? 
 
 Proportioned to its stage of development and the 
 limits of its environment, therefore, the mind of the 
 moneron is essentially godlike. 
 
 The underlying facts leading to these conclusions 
 no evolutionist can or will deny. Atheistic philoso- 
 phers will talk learnedly about the " unconscious," 
 automatic acts of the lower organisms, and will 
 gravely inform us that there is no intelligence in in- 
 stinct; that it is all accounted for by the use of some 
 such words as " irritability," or " reflex action ; " 
 and that even the hardest problems can be solved by 
 the use of the phrase " compound reflex action." 
 To be entirely candid, it must be said that these 
 and other words and phrases of similar import have
 
 282 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 served their purpose admirably; for the average 
 atheistic mind happens to be so constructed that it 
 considers any perplexing phenomenon to be satis- 
 factorily and scientifically explained when some emi- 
 nent philosopher gives it a name. v 
 
 Thus, the late Professor W. B. Carpenter many years 
 ago summarily disposed of a very large instalment of 
 psychic phenomena by inventing the term " uncon- 
 scious cerebration." If the term ever had a meaning, 
 nobody has found it out ; but it served its purpose 
 for many years, and was confidently believed by many 
 to be an extremely scientific explanation of things. 
 Since then the theory of the " unconscious " has been 
 extended to great lengths. Some have even held 
 that God, " if there is a God," is himself unconscious. 
 Others confidently assert that the lower animals act 
 without consciousness, that all instinctive acts are 
 ^ devoid of intelligence, etc. Without stopping to 
 i indulge in an unprofitable, speculative discussion of 
 the question, I would ask, What does any one know 
 about the consciousness of the lower animals? What, 
 in fact, does any one know of the consciousness of 
 i his own subjective mind? Some have gone so far as 
 to hold that it, too, is unconscious, and have desig- 
 i nated it " the unconscious mind." Others call it 
 the " subconscious mind," hinting that its conscious- 
 ness, what little there is of it, is of a very inferior 
 quality. 
 
 The truth is that all the phenomena of the subjec- 
 tive mind go to prove that it is the most intensely 
 conscious mind that we know anything of; that it is 
 constantly alert, sleeplessly active, and untiringly 
 vigilant. Its potentially perfect memory has been
 
 OTHER POWERS OF THE MONERON. 283 
 
 made manifest in thousands of ways. 1 Its intuitive 
 knowledge of the laws of its being is a matter of his- 
 tory. Its prodigious power of rapid mentation, as 
 shown in mathematical prodigies and revealed by 
 those who have been rescued from drowning, is well 
 known to every investigator. That it is, in short, in- 
 tensely conscious of infinitely more than can possibly 
 be cognized by the objective senses, is the most cer- 
 tain and significant truth revealed by modern experi- 
 mental psychology. <J 2/Z"- -- ] 
 
 In point of fact, all that there is of unconscious- 
 ness in the mind of man is that of his objective 
 mind. That is to say, the objective mind is uncon- 
 scious, or ignorant, of the consciousness of the sub- 
 jective mind ; that is, of the extent and character of 
 that consciousness. All that we know or can know 
 of it is what we can learn by the study of its phe- 
 nomena. By that study we know that the subjective 
 mind of man is intensely conscious of all that has 
 ever been cognized, however superficially, by his 
 objective mind; for we know that it is .endowed with 
 a memory that is potentially perfect We also know 
 that it possesses the power of intuitional perception 
 of essential truth, differing in degree, but not in kind, 
 from the instinctive faculties of the lower animals. 
 We know these things, not only because phenomena 
 have been observed to occur spontaneously which ex- 
 hibit these faculties and powers, but because they can 
 be experimentally reproduced by well-known means./ 
 
 These are the facts, and these are the only facts, by 
 which we can determine the question of conscious- 
 ness in the instinctive acts of the lower animals. 
 
 1 See " The Law of Psychic Phenomena."
 
 284 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 Starting, then, from this basis of fact, and knowing 
 that man inherited his subjective faculties from the 
 lower animals, we have the right to infer that the 
 justinct of the lower animals is identical in kind with 
 the subjective mind of man. 
 
 This being true, it follows that every instinctive 
 act of every animal, from the moneron to man, is an 
 act of subjective consciousness, a consciousness 
 that is infinitely more pronounced, alert, and potent 
 than any of which the objective intelligence of man 
 can conceive or can realize from experience. 
 
 We are now prepared to realize how and why it 
 is that the potentialities of manhood reside in the 
 moneron. We can now understand how and why it 
 is that the transcendent faculties of man were inherited 
 from the lowest animal organism. It is simply be- 
 cause those faculties existed, inchoate but potential, 
 in that organism. 
 
 Thus far I have not travelled outside of the general 
 doctrines of the evolutionists, except for the purpose 
 of rinding valid reasons for accepting their funda- 
 mental hypothesis that man is the product of evolu- 
 tionary development from the lowest forms of animal 
 life. In doing so, however, I have shown that they 
 " builded better than they knew ; " for in man's ear- 
 liest earthly ancestor there existed a mind which any 
 man may be proud to claim as his heritage, a 
 mind that in its essence is divine. 
 
 Whence came it? That is the great question in 
 which the whole world is interested. From the evo- 
 lutionary standpoint there are two hypotheses to be 
 considered, and only two ; for in undertaking to dis- 
 cuss the question upon a purely scientific basis, we
 
 OTHER POWERS OF THE MONERON. 285 
 
 have tacitly agreed to ignore all theories not based 
 upon observable phenomena; and the phenomena 
 which we have adopted as the basis of our argument 
 are those of organic and mental evolution. This, of 
 course, precludes the discussion of such questions as 
 that of special creations ; or, in fact, of any other 
 theory or dogma not based upon the facts and 
 phenomena within the purview of our special line of 
 inquiry. 
 
 I repeat, therefore, that, accepting the facts of 
 organic and mental evolution, there are but two 
 hypotheses to be considered in dealing with the 
 question, What is the source and origin of life and 
 mind on this planet? 
 
 One hypothesis is that of spontaneous genera- 
 tion; and the other is that of divine inheritance. 
 The first is the atheistic theory of fortuitism, or 
 chance; the other is the theistic theory of cause 
 and effect 
 
 The theory of fortuitism is very simple, and hence 
 it commends itself to that very large class of people 
 who, having mastered the axiom that " The greatest 
 truths are the simplest," infer that all simple state- 
 ments are great truths. 
 
 I am aware that it will be vehemently denied that 
 the doctrine of spontaneous generation is the doctrine 
 of fortuitism, or chance ; for either of these words is 
 to the atheistic evolutionist as the red rag to the 
 mad bull. Nevertheless, a simple analysis of the 
 doctrine will reveal its true character. The theory is 
 that certain chemical substances, when they happen 
 to be in juxtaposition, unite to form protoplasm, and 
 that protoplasm generates mind.- -^. ^.^: t. L
 
 286 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 That is simple enough, but it is fortuitism ; for if 
 it had not so happened that exactly the right kind of 
 chemicals came together in exactly the right propor- 
 tions, the organic world would still have been literally 
 " without form and void." There would have been 
 no protoplasm, and hence no " basis of life." The 
 only escape from this logical dilemma would be by 
 the admission, either that protoplasm was a special 
 creation, or that it was the result of a law of organic 
 evolutionary development, of which the formation of 
 protoplasm was to be the first grand step in a phy- 
 logenetic series culminating in man. But as this 
 would approach dangerously near the teleological 
 domain they cannot be expected to make any such 
 admission ; especially since the Darwinian philos- 
 ophers hold that all subsequent steps in evolution are 
 due to chance. Their theory of evolution would 
 lack coherence if they hesitated to refer the first step 
 in the process to the same convenient and " simple " 
 hypothesis. 
 
 All this, however, is a question of very small 
 importance when compared with the main issue, 
 which, in plain language, is this : 
 
 Is primordial slime endowed with the faculty of 
 generating a godlike mind ? 
 
 Or, to put it within the limits of their own estimate 
 of the mind of the primordial germ, Is primitive 
 slime endowed with the faculty of generating a mind 
 invested, ab initio, with the potentialities of manhood? 
 
 It must now be remembered that the Darwinians 
 have not produced one fact that even suggests the 
 possibility that life and mind were thus spontaneously 
 generated. On the contrary, their ablest scientists
 
 OTHER POWERS OF THE MONERON. 287 
 
 are compelled to admit that their most careful and 
 painstaking experiments have failed to confirm the 
 hypothesis. And Haeckel himself is compelled to 
 declare that the theory is adopted simply because 
 " this assumption is required by the demand of the 
 human understanding for causality;" i. e. the athe- 
 istic understanding. In other words, he virtually 
 confesses that he is compelled to set up a hypothesis 
 that has not one fact to sustain it, in order to escape 
 the dire alternative of believing to use his own 
 language in a " supernatural miracle." 
 
 His logical attitude is this : he begs the question, 
 to start with, by assuming to decide, confessedly 
 without evidence, the very question in dispute ; and 
 then offers as an excuse another assumption, also 
 without evidence or reason, that is equally disputable 
 and in dispute. That is to say, he assumes to decide 
 the main question, offhand, by declaring spontaneous 
 generation to be the origin of life ; and then attempts 
 to clinch his first assumption by assuming any other 
 theory to be gross superstition, in that it involves a 
 " belief in a supernatural miracle." 
 
 Logicians are tolerably familiar with the petitio 
 principii, and have recognized several different 
 qualities and degrees, such as the " direct " and the 
 " indirect," the " disguised" and the " patent; " but 
 this appears to belong to a new species. Its effi- 
 ciency as a polemical weapon consists in the fact 
 that the second assumption refers back to the first, 
 and is held in terrorem over the heads of those who 
 do not admit the first to be true. 
 
 I repeat, therefore, that the two vital questions at 
 issue between atheistic and theistic evolutionists are
 
 288 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the ones that Professor Haeckel has thus summarily 
 decided. 
 
 The first is, What is the origin of mind and organic 
 life? Did they originate by spontaneous generation, 
 or are they a divine heritage ? 
 
 The second is, If we find evidence of their divine 
 origin, does that involve a belief in a miracle? 
 
 And these are the questions which we will now 
 proceed to discuss.
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 NATURAL LAW VS. "SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE." 
 
 One of the Atheistic Strongholds. Words and Phrases supposed 
 to be Contumelious. A Method of Compelling the Accep- 
 tance of " Scientific" Absurdities. Potential Scare-Words, e. g. 
 Haeckel's " Supernatural Miracle." His Estimate of Deific 
 Limitations. The Question raised. Is a Miracle Necessary 
 to escape Spontaneous Generation? Miracle defined. Facts 
 of Evolution exclude Miracle. Everything happens in Regular 
 Order, therefore not Miraculous. To suppose Miracle to be 
 Necessary is to prescribe Limitations to Divine Intelligence. 
 The Established Order of Nature the Antithesis of Miracle. 
 Beginning of Life necessarily in the Established Order. Genera- 
 tion of Mind from Inorganic Matter would require a Miracle. 
 We must assume Natural Law to prevail. 
 
 ONE of the strongholds of the atheistic fraternity, 
 considered as a proselyting agency, consists 
 in their ability and their propensity to fright the 
 souls of fearful adversaries by the employment of 
 certain stock words and phrases. Experience has 
 taught them that there is a very large and growing 
 class of people who desire above all things to be 
 considered " scientific." They have also discovered 
 that this class can be stampeded into a belief in 
 almost any kind of absurdity if it bears a " scientific " 
 label, or if they are told that it is "unscientific" 
 to believe otherwise. "Superstition" and " super- 
 natural " are also very potent scare-words, and 
 many a poor, timid, would-be scientist has been 
 driven to cover by being told that if he believes in 
 
 1 9
 
 2QO THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 God he is superstitious; and that if he presumes to 
 believe in an intelligent antecedent cause of the phe- 
 nomena of mind, he is a believer in the " super- 
 natural." " Miracle " is another word of wonderful 
 potency in the vocabulary of atheistic proselytism; 
 and when it is reinforced by prefixing the word 
 " supernatural," it is expected to be well-nigh 
 irresistible. 
 
 Hence it was that Professor Haeckel did not neg- 
 lect to close his so-called argument for spontaneous 
 generation with the usual formula, which, reduced to 
 its simplest terms, is this: " If you don't believe in 
 spontaneous generation, you have got to believe in a 
 supernatural miracle." 
 
 This, of course, is equivalent to a declaration that, 
 even supposing an intelligent Deity to exist, he could 
 not be the cause of the phenomena of life without 
 violating or transcending a law of nature. To say 
 that this is another of the pure assumptions of 
 atheism, is putting it in the mildest possible terms. 
 This, again, is the very question at issue between 
 the atheistic and the theistic evolutionist: Is it 
 necessary to presuppose a " supernatural miracle " 
 as the only alternative to a belief in spontaneous 
 generation? 
 
 In order to answer that question, we must first 
 define the word " miracle." Webster's definition is, 
 " An event or effect contrary to the established con- 
 stitution and course of things, or a deviation from 
 the known laws of nature ; a supernatural event." 
 
 The definition of the Standard Dictionary is as 
 follows: "2. Theol. An event in the natural world, 
 but out of its established order, and possible only by
 
 NATURAL LAW vs. MIRACLE. 29 1 
 
 the intervention and exertion of divine power; a 
 supernatural event." 
 
 Now, postulating, for the time being, the existence 
 of an intelligent Deity, a Great First Cause of all 
 things, what would it be necessary to prove in order 
 to bring the phenomena of life, as shown in the 
 monera, within the domain of the supernatural ? 
 
 Three things are necessary, namely: 
 
 1. It must be shown that those phenomena are 
 " events in the natural world." 
 
 2. That they are " out of the established order." 
 
 3. That they were " possible only by the inter- 
 vention and exertion of divine power." 
 
 It will be seen at a glance that but one of the con- 
 ditions is fulfilled ; namely, the beginning of life, as 
 shown in the moneron, was " an event in the natural 
 world." But it would be difficult to show that it was 
 " out of the established order." Indeed, it would be 
 difficult to show that the beginning of anything was 
 out of the established order. This alone takes the 
 event out of the category of miracle, no matter what 
 the theory of causation may be ; for if there is any 
 event in any series that is, ex necessitate, in its estab- 
 lished order, it is the initial event. 
 
 Again, it would be found quite difficult to show 
 that, under the theistic hypothesis, the beginning of 
 life was " possible only by the intervention and exer- 
 tion of divine power." 
 
 " Intervention " means " the act of intervening or 
 coming between ; the state of being interposed ; in- 
 terposition." 1 The "intervention" and "exertion 
 of divine power" in endowing the moneron with 
 1 Standard Dictionary.
 
 292 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 organic life, would therefore be a special act of 
 creation ; and, in order to show that it was miracu- 
 lous, it must be shown that it was possible only by 
 an act of special creation, " out of the established 
 order." In other words, it would be necessary to 
 show that divine power is unequal to the task of 
 establishing a law of evolutionary development, in 
 pursuance of which organic life could have a begin- 
 ning or a progressive development without the neces- 
 sity of an occasional miracle to correct that wherein 
 the original plan was defective. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the element of miracle, or 
 special creation, is necessarily absent: first, because 
 the beginning of life could not have been " out of 
 the established order ; " secondly, because a miracle 
 within the established order of nature is a contra- 
 diction in terms ; and, thirdly, because the alleged 
 necessity for a miracle implies a being of deficient 
 intelligence and limited powers. 
 
 The established order of development is the very 
 antithesis of miracle ; and the latter can be assumed 
 only when it is shown that something has been 
 created out of that order. For instance, if it could 
 be shown that a marsupial or a monkey or an 
 agnostic was created first or out of its order, a 
 miracle might be posited and its wisdom questioned. 
 But the natural, or established, order of development 
 proclaims the reign of intelligence and law. 
 
 The position of the atheistic evolutionist may 
 therefore be restated as follows: 
 
 Organic life, mind, and intelligence, with all their 
 implications and potentialities, were spontaneously 
 generated from inorganic matter; or else they were
 
 NATURAL LAW vs. MIRACLE. 293 
 
 specially created by a being of inferior intelligence 
 and limited powers, by means of a " supernatural 
 miracle." 
 
 I have already shown that the agnostics are con- 
 fessedly without facts that point in the direction of 
 spontaneous generation ; and that they are confessedly 
 compelled by necessity to assume that hypothe- 
 sis as the only logical avenue of escape from the 
 acknowledgment of the existence of an intelligent 
 cause of the phenomena of life and mind. But, by 
 what logical right they assume that an intelligent 
 cause of those phenomena is necessarily a being of 
 limited intelligence, does not appear from their 
 writings. We must therefore infer that that con- 
 clusion is also a pure assumption, and one that is 
 unrelieved by the mitigating excuse of necessity. 
 
 There is, in fact, no more logical necessity for sup- 
 posing a miracle to be necessary in order to endow 
 protoplasm with life and mind under the theistic 
 hypothesis, than there is for classing spontaneous 
 generation as a supernatural process. Nor as much ; 
 for the latter would be an event clearly " out of the 
 natural order," so far as man is able to judge from 
 any facts in his possession. That is to say, we know 
 of no facts which give us a right to suppose that or- 
 ganic life and mind can have their origin in inorganic 
 matter. But the universe is full of evidence that 
 mind is only acquired by inheritance from an ante- 
 cedent mind endowed with attributes and powers 
 identical in kind with those inherited. We also know 
 that there is no miracle in inheritance. And we 
 have every right to suppose, judging by all the facts 
 in our possession, that there is no antecedent mind
 
 294 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 in inorganic matter from which the mental organism 
 of the moneron could have been inherited. 
 
 There is, therefore, no a priori reason for positing 
 a miracle on the assumption of an antecedent mind 
 force or energy in the universe from which the mone- 
 ron derived its peculiar powers. On the contrary, 
 we must suppose that the advent of mind upon this 
 planet was in pursuance of a natural law, at least 
 until evidence to the contrary is found of sufficient 
 weight to destroy our confidence in the constancy of 
 nature. In the ensuing chapters of this book we 
 will institute a quest for that law, " if haply we may 
 feel after it, and find it," though, literally, " it is not 
 far from each one of us."
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 
 
 Facts drawn from the History of Organic Evolution. The Doctrine 
 of Heredity. Its Biological Definition. The Authority of 
 Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel. The Common Ground upon 
 which Atheism and Theism can stand. The Acknowledged 
 Facts of Heredity. The Necessary Presumptions. Something 
 to inherit. Something from which to inherit. The Character 
 of the Inheritance. Must exist actually or potentially in the 
 Ancestor. May differ in Degree, but not in Kind. Man 
 inherits from his Lower Ancestry back to the Moneron. 
 Whence the Intelligence of the Moneron? The Law of Hered- 
 ity presupposes an Ancestor. Atheism says, "This is an 
 Exception to the General Law." Theism replies that Laws of 
 Nature do not admit of Exceptions. The Issue systematically 
 examined. The Necessity of going back to the Beginning of 
 Organic Life. (i) The Issue: Spontaneous Generation or 
 Inheritance. (2) The Facts agreed upon : (a) Potentials of 
 Manhood in the Moneron (b) Faculties acquired only by In- 
 heritance (c) Antecedent Intelligence presupposed (d) Fail- 
 ure of Experimental Attempts to generate Life from Inorganic 
 Matter (e) Monera Destitute of Structural Organism 
 (f) Nevertheless endowed with a Mind (g) Developed into a 
 Structural Organism (h) Moneron's Mind antedated its Physi- 
 cal Organism. 3. What Facts support Theory of Spontaneous 
 Generation ? Confessedly all Facts are against it. Experi- 
 mental Failures. Quality of Evidence considered. Negative 
 Evidence not the Best. But a Hypothesis without one Fact to 
 support it is a Logical Absurdity. Hypothesis Valid only when 
 sustained by all Facts. Otherwise no Constancy in Nature. 
 Atheistic Hypothesis Unique Has no Parallel in Bald, Unrea- 
 soning Assumption. Reasons for Atheist's Attitude. Doctrine 
 of Evolution disproved Theory of Special Creations. Heiice
 
 296 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 he "said in his Heart, There is no God. " Hence Necessity for 
 inventing a Hypothesis. Paralleled only by that of Topsy. 
 Haeckel's Statement of the Issue. Spontaneous Generation or 
 " Supernatural Miracle." Equivalent to Spontaneous Generation 
 or Divine Agency. The Latter the Real Issue. No Other 
 Possible. One is True and the Other False. Logical Condi- 
 tions considered. Facts in Support of Hereditary Hypothesis 
 next in Order. 
 
 HAVING failed to find either facts, phenomena, 
 or valid reasons for the assumptions of athe- 
 ism in regard to the origin of life, let us briefly 
 examine the question from the theistic point of view, 
 and see what facts there are to sustain the belief that 
 the stream of life and mind has a source higher than 
 the insensate earth. 
 
 In making this inquiry I shall continue to be 
 guided by facts as they appear in the history of 
 evolution, and I shall draw upon the same sources of 
 information that I have thus far drawn upon, namely, 
 the great masters of biological science. I shall also 
 be guided very largely by their general conclusions. 
 In fact, I shall carry those conclusions further than 
 they have carried them. But I shall not deviate from 
 the line of direction which they have indicated. 
 
 The particular doctrine to which I shall first invite 
 attention is that of heredity. Heredity, in a gen- 
 eral sense, is defined as the transmission of physical 
 or mental peculiarities, qualities, etc., from parent to 
 offspring. In the biological sense, it is defined as 
 " the tendency manifested by one organism to de- 
 velop in the likeness of a progenitor." 1 
 
 These are general definitions with which everybody 
 is familiar. The doctrine as applied to biogeny, 
 
 1 Standard Dictionary.
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 297 
 
 however, requires a more specific statement. In the 
 language of Darwin, it is " that all the innumerable 
 species, genera, and families of organic beings with 
 which the world is peopled have all descended, each 
 within its own class or group, from common parents." 1 
 
 And, in view of the facts of geology, it follows that 
 all living plants and animals " are the lineal descen- 
 dants of those which lived long before the Silurian 
 epoch." 2 
 
 " It is an obvious consequence of this theory of 
 descent," says Huxley, "... that all plants and 
 animals, however different they may now be, must, 
 at one time or other, have been connected by direct 
 or indirect intermediate gradations, and that the ap- 
 pearance of isolation presented by various groups of 
 organic beings must be unreal." 3 
 
 More specifically still, Professor Haeckel, as we have 
 already seen, emphasizes the doctrine of heredity, 
 and traces the line of descent back, through twenty- 
 two gradients, from man to the monera. 4 That 
 Haeckel is a standard authority among atheistic evo- 
 lutionists is a matter of current knowledge among 
 scientific men everywhere. Darwin himself takes 
 particular pains to indorse his views in general and 
 in particular. Speaking of one of Professor Haeckel's 
 works on the genealogy of man, Mr. Darwin has 
 this to say : 
 
 " If this work had appeared before my essay had been 
 written, I should probably never have completed it. Al- 
 
 1 Origin of Species, ed. i. p. 457. 
 
 2 Op. cit. p. 458. 
 
 8 Darwiniana, p. 233. 
 
 4 See " The Evolution of Man.'
 
 298 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 most all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find con- 
 firmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points 
 is much fuller than mine." 1 
 
 It will thus be seen that if there is any one point 
 upon which the master minds of biogenetic science 
 are in complete harmony, it is in subscribing to the 
 proposition that man inherited his faculties from the 
 lower animals, beginning with the lowest form of 
 animal life, the monera. A corollary of this, to 
 which they all subscribe, is that the potentialities 
 of manhood reside in the lowest form of animal 
 life. 
 
 Now, it is not too much to say that this conclusion 
 is the most important result of the study of the facts 
 of organic evolution. From every point of view it 
 is the grand result; for everything else of importance 
 is included, and atheistic and theistic evolutionists 
 can meet on this common ground, not of belief, but 
 of knowledge. It matters not how devious or diver- 
 gent the paths by which they have reached the goal, 
 science and religion have at last found a basis of at 
 least temporary reconciliation. 
 
 It is obvious that it must have been a potent 
 agency that was capable of bringing atheism and 
 theism into harmonious relations. That agency could 
 have been nothing less potent than truth. And the 
 process by which that truth was reached was that of 
 inductive reasoning, reasoning from the observable 
 facts and phenomena of nature. 
 
 It was thus that atheism and theism alike dis- 
 covered that there is not one fact in nature that 
 
 1 Descent of Man, Introduction, p. 3
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 299 
 
 points to any other possible means of acquiring 
 mental faculties than that of inheritance. 
 
 Now, let us see what is necessarily presupposed in 
 the doctrine of heredity. 
 
 First, then, it presupposes something to inherit; 
 and secondly, it presupposes an ancestor from which 
 that something is inherited. Obviously nothing can 
 be inherited that does not exist, actually or po- 
 tentially; and nothing can be inherited unless there 
 is an existent entity from which to derive the inher- 
 itance. These are self-evident propositions ; and 
 they may be reduced to one fundamental proposition 
 as follows : 
 
 An inherited faculty presupposes an antecedent en- 
 tity endowed with a mind in which the identical 
 faculty acttially or potentially exists. 
 
 The faculty may be different in degree, but not in 
 kind. It may be greater or smaller, as phenomenally 
 manifested in the offspring, than it was in the parent; 
 but it must be identical in kind. Thus, a child may 
 exhibit wonderful faculties in which the parent may 
 seem totally deficient; but it is self-evident that the 
 same faculties existed potentially in the parent. On 
 the other hand, the parent may have faculties largely 
 developed in which the child may seem totally defi- 
 cient; but that they exist potentially in the child 
 is a proposition that no sane person can or will 
 gainsay. 
 
 These are elementary principles in the doctrine of 
 heredity; and that they apply with equal force to 
 the phylogenetic series, from the moneron to man, 
 is the elementary proposition of the theory of evolu- 
 tion. Eliminate them from the doctrine of evolution,
 
 300 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 and the whole fabric falls to pieces of its own weight. 
 If the doctrine of heredity fails, then fails the whole 
 theory of progressive development of animal life, 
 and the world is again plunged into the dark and 
 dismal realms of superstition. 
 
 Now, let us apply the doctrine of heredity to the 
 solution of the question of the origin of life. In 
 other words, let us carry the principle of heredity to 
 its legitimate conclusion. In doing so, we will bear 
 in mind the promise not to deviate one hair's breadth 
 from the line of direction which atheism has indicated 
 as the one leading to ultimate truth, that is, to the 
 ultimate solution of the problem of the origin of life 
 and mind on this planet. 
 
 Beginning with man, therefore, and going back 
 through the phylogenetic series to the moneron, 
 atheism and theism will travel along harmoniously 
 together, each subscribing to the propositions (i) 
 that all faculties of mind are acquired by inher- 
 itance, and (2) that an inherited faculty presup- 
 poses an antecedent entity endowed with a mind in 
 which the identical faculty actually or potentially 
 exists. 
 
 When the moneron is reached, however, the atheist 
 pauses, and protests against going any further in that 
 particular direction. He has discovered what no 
 scientist has ever found before, and what none but 
 an atheistic scientist is capable of discovering, namely, 
 an exception to a law of nature. The law of heredity 
 is no longer suited to his purpose. It works the 
 wrong way. Its implications are no longer atheistic; 
 and he abandons it forever. 
 
 The theistic evolutionist, on the other hand, finds
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 301 
 
 in the moneron no exception to any law of nature 
 with which he is acquainted. On the contrary, he 
 finds in that little animal confirmation strong as 
 proofs of Holy Writ that the law of heredity holds as 
 good at the beginning of organic life as it does at 
 every subsequent stage. That is to say, he sees the 
 same necessity for the presupposition of a mind 
 antecedent to the moneron, a mind endowed with 
 the same attributes and powers, differing only in 
 degree, that he finds inherent in that lowest form of 
 animal life. 
 
 Now, let us examine a little more systematically 
 the logical attitude, respectively, of the atheistic and 
 the theistic evolutionist, in regard to this the most 
 important question raised by the facts of organic 
 evolution. 
 
 It must be remembered, to begin with, that each of 
 the two contending parties professes to be conducting 
 the examination by the process of induction. Each 
 professes to ignore all speculative philosophy bearing 
 upon the subject, and to be guided solely by the 
 facts and observable phenomena. And each has 
 recognized the fact that it is at the very beginning of 
 organic life in this world that we must find, if any- 
 where, tangible evidences as to its origin. This is in 
 accordance with the elementary principle of all pro- 
 cesses of rational investigation. It is recognized by 
 every true scientist who seeks to interpret correctly 
 the laws of nature. It is recognized by every lawyer 
 who seeks to interpret the statutes of his country. 
 Blackstone lays particular stress upon this principle 
 as the only infallible guide to the correct interpreta- 
 tion of ambiguous statutes. " If the words are am-
 
 302 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 biguous," says this greatest of English law writers 
 (I quote from memory), " examine the context," and 
 then the " subject-matter." If it is still ambiguous, 
 consider the " reason and spirit of the law." In 
 doing the latter, he lays down this simple rule: 
 Consider " the old law, the mischief, and the remedy." 
 That is to say, first find what the old law was; 
 secondly, what was the " mischief" or evil in the old 
 law that required a remedy; and, thirdly, what was 
 the remedy devised by the new law. In other words, 
 we must go back to the very beginning if we would 
 find facts that will enable us to interpret correctly a 
 law either of God or of man. It is this principle that 
 every true lawyer applies to the whole system of 
 jurisprudence under which he practises. It is this 
 principle that every true scientist applies to the 
 investigation of every problem of nature. It is this 
 principle that I have sought to apply to the investi- 
 gation of the question, What is the origin of life on 
 this planet? 
 
 I repeat, therefore, that if there are existent facts 
 that bear directly upon the question of the origin of 
 life, we must look for them at the beginning of life. 
 
 We will now group the facts and arguments bearing 
 upon this question in the following order: (i) The 
 issue between atheism and theism ; (2) The facts 
 agreed upon ; (3) The facts in support of atheism ; 
 (4) The facts in support of theism. 
 
 The issue between the atheistic and the theistic 
 evolutionist is this: the former holds that life and 
 mind originated by spontaneous generation from inor- 
 ganic matter; the latter holds that life and mind were 
 acquired by inheritance from an omniscient mind.
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 303 
 
 The facts and principles tacitly agreed upon by 
 both parties are substantially the following : 
 
 First, that in the mind of the moneron reside the 
 potentialities of the mental faculties of manhood. 
 
 Secondly, that in the phylogenetic history of 
 organic life there is no instance of the acquisition of 
 mental faculties in any other way than by inheritance. 
 
 Thirdly, that an inherited faculty necessarily pre- 
 supposes an antecedent intelligence identical in kind. 
 
 Fourthly, that all experimental attempts to generate 
 organic life from inorganic compounds have utterly 
 failed. 
 
 Fifthly, that the moneron consists of a mass of 
 absolutely undifferentiated, structureless plasson or 
 primitive slime. 
 
 Sixthly, that it is, nevertheless, endowed with a 
 mind organism, and that it performs all the functions 
 and exhibits all the essential phenomena of organic 
 life, namely, sensation, movement, nutrition, and 
 reproduction ; all this being antecedent to, and inde- 
 pendent of, reason, experience, or instruction. 
 
 Seventhly, that this mental energy thus resident 
 within the moneron is the power which caused its 
 own development from an undifferentiated mass of 
 plasson to the differentiated or nucleated amoeba ; thus 
 taking the first forward step in the process of organic 
 evolution. 
 
 Eighthly, that the mind of the moneron antedated 
 its physical organism, and was, as a rratter of fact, 
 the antecedent cause of physical organism. 
 
 These are facts which will not be denied by either 
 atheist or theist. They are either specifically or 
 tacitly affirmed by both ; and they are essential to
 
 304 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 both, paradoxical as it may seem. They are.essential 
 to the atheistic evolutionist because they are essential 
 to the general hypothesis of evolution. They are 
 essential to the theistic evolutionist for the same 
 reason, and also because they are essential to the 
 hypothesis of theism. 
 
 It is now in order to inquire what facts there are 
 to sustain the theory of spontaneous generation. 
 The reader has already anticipated the answer. 
 There is not one fact that points in that direction. 
 This I have hereinbefore pointed out and empha- 
 sized by quotations from Professor Haeckel's works, 
 in which he confesses that the theory cannot be 
 verified, but consoles himself by the declaration 
 that it cannot be disproved. All experimental fail- 
 ures to develop or generate organic life from inor- 
 ganic matter count for nothing in his mind. Candor 
 compels the admission that it is not the best quality 
 of evidence. It is always difficult and often impos- 
 sible to prove a negative. But it must also be re- 
 membered that, logically, no one is bound to prove 
 a negative until the side holding the affirmative has 
 made at least a. prim a facie case. In this instance 
 not only has this not been done, but, confessedly, it 
 cannot be done. 
 
 The evidence for spontaneous generation, there- 
 fore, may be set down as absolutely less than no 
 evidence at all ; for the only facts bearing upon the 
 case are against the hypothesis. I submit, therefore, 
 that, considered as a scientific conclusion based 
 upon inductive processes of reasoning, the hypothesis 
 of spontaneous generation is simply a logical ab- 
 surdity. Induction presupposes at least one fact
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 305 
 
 pointing in the direction indicated by the hypothet- 
 ical conclusion. 
 
 Moreover, an axiom recognized by every logician 
 and by every scientist worthy of the name, is that, if 
 a hypothesis is not sustained by all the facts bearing 
 upon the question, it is necessarily wrong. This axiom 
 is founded upon two fundamental truths: namely, 
 (i) that no fact in all this universe is inconsistent 
 with any other fact; and (2) there are no excep- 
 tional cases in the operation of nature's laws. These 
 may_all be condensed into that most fundamental 
 and important of all scientific truths, namely, that 
 which is affirmative of the constancy of nature. 
 
 The hypothesis of spontaneous generation is, 
 therefore, in absolute and unqualified derogation of 
 each and all of these fundamental axioms. Consid- 
 ered, therefore, as a proposition emanating from a 
 body of scientists who are constantly proclaiming 
 their devotion to the principles of induction, it must 
 be considered unique, to say the least; for, if it has 
 ever been paralleled for bald assumption without the 
 shadow of a shade of evidence, history has not re- 
 corded the fact. 
 
 Now, there must have existed some overwhelming 
 logical necessity for such a flagrant violation of all 
 the principles that are supposed to prevail in the 
 scientific investigation of the phenomena of nature. 
 It will be recalled that Professor Haeckel confessed 
 that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was a 
 mere assumption, and that it was prompted by neces- 
 sity. A few words will explain this necessity, and 
 how it arose. 
 
 It will be remembered that, when the doctrine of 
 20
 
 306 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 organic evolution was first promulgated, it was re- 
 garded as an atheistic science. It was natural that 
 it should be so regarded, since it was promulgated 
 by atheists; but especially for the reason that the 
 theory substituted progressive development for the 
 old doctrine of special creations of genera and species 
 in the organic world. Having succeeded in dis- 
 proving the latter doctrine, the atheistic scientists 
 imagined that they had " eliminated God from the 
 universe." That is to say, having discovered prox- 
 imate causes (causa efficientes) for a great many 
 phenomena which had before been supposed to be 
 due to miraculous intervention, they jumped to the 
 conclusion that there was no necessity for final or 
 purposive causes (causes finales} for anything. Hence 
 they determined either to find a "mechanical cause" 
 (Haeckel) for every phenomenon or invent one out 
 of hand. Heredity served their purpose admirably 
 until they reached the very beginning of animal life. 
 Here was the crucial point, here the parting of the 
 ways. If they carried the doctrine of heredity to its 
 legitimate conclusion, it presupposed an intelligence 
 antecedent to the monera; and that intelligence, of 
 course, could be none other than that of omniscience. 
 But as that did not comport with their predetermined 
 atheism, they had no other resource but to invent. 
 And so they invented. They invented a theory of 
 the origin of life and mind on this planet. The in- 
 vention may have been original with them, but it was 
 not new ; for it had been exactly paralleled by the 
 late lamented Topsy. 
 
 The most important part of Professor Haeckel's 
 remarks on this subject consists of the confession
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 307 
 
 which he inadvertently makes when he sets forth the 
 dire consequences of refusing to accept the theory 
 of spontaneous generation. He who does not accept 
 that theory " has no other resource but to believe in 
 a supernatural miracle," are the portentous words of 
 the great atheist. 
 
 Considered as an atheistic proselyting agency 
 among the feeble-minded, these words are potent, 
 as I have already shown. 
 
 Considered as a statement of fact, they are untrue, 
 as I have hereinbefore pointed out; for a miracle 
 cannot be predicated of an event occurring in its 
 natural order. 
 
 But, considered as a scientific declaration of the 
 narrow limits of the field of inquiry for causation, 
 they are profoundly significant. 
 
 It is equivalent to saying, "There are but two 
 possible theories of causation, one is spontaneous 
 generation, and the other is divine agency." 
 
 The value of this declaration consists in its 
 obvious and undeniable truth. The ingenuity of 
 man is not equal to the formulation of any other 
 rational hypothesis to account for the origin of life 
 on this planet. One of these hypotheses is true, 
 and the other is false. There is, and there can be, 
 no middle ground. Either positively excludes the 
 other; for they are antithetical. 
 
 This declaration by Professor Haeckel is the 
 exact equivalent, in its implications, of what I have 
 been contending for all along. It is a declaration 
 that if the question of theism or anti-theism is ever 
 to be settled by induction, it must be done at this 
 point, the beginning of organic life. In the mean
 
 308 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 time, or until the question is settled at this point, 
 all other questions pertaining to the subject-matter 
 are purely subsidiary, incidental, and speculative. 
 
 I must not, however, be understood as admitting 
 that, even if it could be demonstrated that organic 
 life could be generated from inorganic compounds, 
 the existence of an intelligent Great First Cause of 
 all things would thereby be disproved. On the con- 
 trary, the old arguments for the existence of such a 
 Deity would not be diminished in value in the least. 
 It would simply be putting that question one step 
 farther back, but otherwise leaving it just where it 
 was found, in the domain of speculative philos- 
 ophy. On the other hand, if an inductive examina- 
 tion of the question reveals the Great First Cause 
 in the lowest form of animal life, that is to say, if 
 the facts admit of no other possible interpretation, 
 then every teleological argument that has ever been 
 made is invested with a scientific value and sig- 
 nificance that it never before possessed. 
 
 In the mean time I am not unaware of one logical 
 advantage possessed by the other side in the discus- 
 sion of this question. I am fully impressed with 
 the value of the scientific axiom that "we have 
 neither occasion nor logical right to ascribe any 
 phenomenon to supermundane agency so long as it 
 can be explained under principles of natural law 
 with which we are acquainted." 
 
 In my former works 1 I have strenuously insisted 
 upon the never-failing value of this axiom; and I 
 have taken occasion to apply it to the phenomena of 
 
 1 See "The Law of Psychic Phenomena" and "A Scientific 
 Demonstration of the Future Life."
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 309 
 
 so-called spiritism. And I have undertaken to show 
 that the fatal weakness of spiritism consists in the 
 fact that all its phenomena are easily explicable 
 under natural laws, the existence of which the 
 spiritists do not themselves deny. 
 
 I just as strenuously insist upon the application 
 of this rule to the subject under present considera- 
 tion. But I also claim the right to trace to a super- 
 mundane source any phenomena that admittedly 
 cannot be explained by reference to any known law ; 
 and, a fortiori, I claim that right in cases where all 
 the known facts conspire to disprove the only pos- 
 sible hypothesis under which the necessity for a 
 supermundane explanation could be avoided. 
 
 I admit that it requires a very strong array of 
 reasons to justify a scientist in seeking in super- 
 mundane realms for an explanation of phenomena in 
 the organic world. But it demands still stronger 
 reasons to justify him in ignoring facts, belittling 
 their importance, or misrepresenting their signifi- 
 cance, when conducting an inductive inquiry. Still 
 stronger reasons are required to justify a scientist 
 in postulating a theory of causation that is destitute 
 of either fact or reason to support it; and nothing 
 can justify him in belittling the intelligence of 
 possible opponents by charging them in advance 
 with gross superstition. 
 
 Having now definitely ascertained that there are 
 neither facts nor reasons to sustain the theory of 
 spontaneous generation, let us next in order inquire 
 what facts there are to warrant the acceptance of 
 the hypothesis of hereditary transmission from an 
 antecedent mind.
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY (CONTINUED). 
 
 The Character of the Heritage. If essentially Divine, it is Pre- 
 sumptive Evidence of Divine Origin. If no other Source is 
 Possible, the Evidence is Conclusive. No other Possible Source 
 has been shown. Examination of Facts showing Divine Attri- 
 butes in the Moneron. They are the Elementary Facts of 
 Evolution. They demonstrate Intuitive Knowledge of Laws of 
 its Being. Explanations on other Grounds Pure Assumptions. 
 Begging the Question. Knowledge measured by Actions. 
 Adaptation of Means to Ends the Test of Intelligence. Attributes 
 summed up. Intuition. Antecedent to Organism. Has Power 
 over Unorganized Matter. Creative Power. Creates New 
 Species. Transmits by Inheritance. Dominant Instinct Crea- 
 tive. Dominant Emotion Altruistic. Potentially Divine. All 
 Essential Attributes of the God of Christian Faith. Differing 
 only in Degree. Knowledge, Power, Love. Whence came 
 they ? The Question for Inductive Science. Science knows of 
 but One Way of acquiring Faculties, Inheritance. By Analy- 
 sis of Faculties it learns the Character of Ancestry, and can 
 predict Character of Posterity. No Exceptions to Nature's 
 Laws. Divine Faculties necessarily a Divine Heritage. 
 Atheistic Objections. "Supernatural Miracle." Objection In- 
 valid. Miracle cannot be posited on Intelligence. Natural 
 Law always presumed. Electric Phenomena originated in 
 Cosmic Electrical Energy. Mind originated in Cosmic Mind 
 Energy. Atheistic Theory a Recrudescence of Fetichism. 
 Mind in Inanimate Matter, e. g. No Disrespect to Fetich Wor- 
 shipper. Lodestone does not generate Magnetism. Proto- 
 plasm does not generate Mind. Each Substance is a Medium 
 of Manifestation of a Cosmic Energy. Can One Mind be 
 produced from Another ? Reproduction an Example. Re- 
 production by Fission Demonstrative. The Monera indefinitely 
 Divisible. Each Particle a Distinct Mind Organism. Repro- 
 duction a Mental Act. Inferences as to Divine Methods. The 
 Mind of each Sentient Creature a Part of the Divine Mind. 
 Logical Rules of Investigation. The Law of Parsimony.
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 3 1 1 
 
 All violated by Atheism. Truth does not necessitate a Violation 
 of Logical Principles. All Essential Truth may be known 
 by Inductive Investigation. Application of Rules. Logical 
 Axioms: (i) No Effect without a Cause; (2) Cause always 
 Commensurable with Effect. They are " Universal Postu- 
 lates." We may therefore always know the Nature of a Cause 
 by observing its Effects. Nature never erects False Signals. 
 Under this Law we know that the Cause of Mind is Mind. 
 Under the Law of Heredity we know its Attributes, that it is 
 an Organized, Conscious Intelligence, a Personality, a Creative 
 Intelligence, a Constant Energy, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Altru- 
 istic. No other Hypothesis accounts for All the Facts. If 
 Nature is Constant, we know that God is our Father. 
 
 THE presentation of the facts and phenomena 
 which confirm the theory of divine inherit- 
 ance of mental attributes will necessarily involve 
 more or less of recapitulation of what has been 
 already mentioned. But at that risk I deem it 
 desirable so to group the facts as to give the reader 
 a perspective view of the whole. 
 
 The first fact to be considered is the character of 
 the heritage. This is of the first importance; for its 
 evidential value must be measured by its character. 
 That is to say, the quality of the thing possessed, 
 and alleged to be an inheritance from a given ances- 
 tor, must be identical with that known or presumed 
 to belong to said ancestor. Otherwise no presump- 
 tion could arise from the character of the thing pos- 
 sessed in favor of the verity of the allegation. If, 
 however, it is found to be identical with that known 
 to belong to the alleged ancestor, the presumption 
 is strongly in favor of the truth of the allegation. 
 And this presumption is converted into conclusive 
 evidence when it is known that there is no other 
 possible source from which such a heritage could be 
 derived. Thus, if a divine ancestry is claimed, the
 
 312 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 inheritance must be shown to be in its essence 
 divine. Otherwise the heritage in itself possesses 
 no evidential value bearing upon the question of its 
 origin. But if it can be shown to be divine in its 
 essential characteristics, the presumption is in favor 
 of the claim ; and said presumption is greatly 
 strengthened in the absence of evidence of any other 
 possible source of inheritance. 
 
 Thus, if the mind of the moneron is shown to be 
 invested with the essential attributes of omniscience 
 and omnipotence, differing only in degree and not 
 in kind, the presumption is in favor of the theory of 
 divine inheritance. And in the absence of evidence 
 of any other possible source of inheritance, its 
 mental attributes possess an evidential value of an 
 order so high as to require conclusive evidence to 
 the contrary to rebut the presumption. In the 
 absence of such rebutting evidence, if it could be 
 shown affirmatively that there is no other possible 
 source of inheritance, the evidence in favor of divine 
 inheritance would be conclusive. But as affirmative 
 proof of a negative proposition is in any case diffi- 
 cult to procure, and in this case quite impossible, 
 we must rest content with the very high order of 
 presumptive evidence which is ours in the absence 
 of any evidence whatever to rebut the presumption. 
 
 Fortunately, however, the claims of atheism are 
 of such a character as to be equivalent to a very 
 high order of evidence of their own falsity. When 
 a party to a controversy sets up an allegation that is 
 absurd on its face, and confesses that he has no 
 proof whatever that it is true, it is equivalent to an 
 admission that he has no case. Then, if it is also
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 313 
 
 shown that all the known facts tend to disprove his 
 allegation, presumptive evidence on the other side 
 is converted into the equivalent of conclusive 
 evidence. 
 
 And this is exactly the status of the controversy 
 between theism and atheism over the question of the 
 origin of life. A high order of presumptive evi- 
 dence that life is a divine inheritance is met by 
 the theory of spontaneous generation, a hypothesis 
 admittedly without a fact to sustain it, an abandon- 
 ment at once of the law of heredity and of the 
 methods of induction; a reckless leap into the 
 cloudy realms of speculative philosophy, sans 
 reason, sans probability, sans truth, sans every- 
 thing save an insensate determination to avoid the 
 obvious truth that the phenomena of intelligence 
 must have an intelligent origin. 
 
 There is, for the agnostics, one way of temporary 
 escape from their logical dilemma. That is to say, 
 there is one way by which they could retain a tem- 
 porary hold upon the law of heredity; and that is by 
 affirming that mind exists in the rocks and mud at 
 the bottom of the ocean. This would give to the 
 monera an earthly ancestor, endowed, of course, with 
 the same quality of mind, the same potentials. 
 But even this would only serve to put the real ques- 
 tion one step farther back; for if it could be demon- 
 strated that every atom of matter composing this 
 earth is endowed with a mind, the question of that 
 mind's origin would still remain just as it is now, 
 and the same arguments would hold good. 
 
 But I prefer not to lead them into the mire and 
 mud of speculation without facts further than they
 
 3H THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 have chosen to go. I prefer to remain upon the 
 solid ground of truth as we find it, and laws as we 
 know them, ^acts are_diyine revelations. Specu- 
 lative philosophy is guesswork. We know some- 
 thing of the mind manifested in the monera; and we 
 know something of the essentials of the law of 
 heredity. But we know nothing of a mind existing 
 in mud ; and we know of no process of acquiring a 
 mind except by inheritance. 
 
 Now let us re-examine those faculties possessed 
 by 'the moneron which proclaim its divine pedi- 
 gree : 
 
 In the first place, it is admitted by all evolution- 
 ists that it is invested with the potentialities of 
 manhood. That is to say, it possesses in rudi- 
 mentary form all the activities, mental and physical, 
 to be found in man. " It transforms food into tissue 
 and other metabolic products, and this is the basis 
 of all the nutritive activities and processes of the 
 higher animals. It can move parts of itself [pseu- 
 dopodia] and is capable of locomotion, and this is 
 the basis of all movement in the higher animals 
 brought about by bones and muscles. It can feel a 
 stimulus and respond, and this is the basis of the 
 sensory faculties of the higher animals. It can 
 reproduce itself by segmentation, and this is the 
 basis of reproduction in the higher animals. On 
 dividing it inherits the actual qualities of the parent 
 mass, and this is the basis of heredity." 1 In short, 
 it possesses the instinct of self-preservation, and 
 this is the basis of all the self-regarding emotions 
 and activities characteristic of man; and it pos- 
 
 1 See Professor Gates in " Therapist," December, 1895.
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 315 
 
 sesses the instinct of reproduction, and this is the 
 basis of all the altruistic, or other-regarding, emo- 
 tions and activities that characterize the noblest 
 manhood. 
 
 No one will dispute these propositions; for they 
 are the elementary facts in the history of organic 
 evolution. Nor can any one successfully controvert 
 the conclusion that the possession of these attributes 
 demonstrates the proposition that the moneron is 
 endowed with an intuitive knowledge of the essential 
 laws of its being. It is no answer to this proposi- 
 tion to say that its acts are "automatic," and there- 
 fore without intelligence; for that is begging the 
 question. Besides, it is a contradiction in terms to 
 say that an intelligent action can be performed 
 without intelligence. That its actions are prompted 
 by intelligence is demonstrated by the fact that all 
 its acts are adaptations of means to ends. Nor does 
 it do to say that its actions are "unconscious," for 
 that, too, is begging the question. Again, it is a 
 contradiction in terms to say that an intelligent 
 adaptation of means to ends is an unconscious 
 act. To say that it is reflex action, and therefore 
 not conscious, is another way of begging the ques- 
 tion; for reflex action itself is an adaptation of 
 means to ends, as I have already pointed out. All 
 these terms are pure inventions, apparently con- 
 cocted either to conceal ignorance of the real sig- 
 nificance of instinct, or to belittle that significance 
 in the interest of materialism. In this, as in every 
 subject of human investigation, one grain of fact, 
 intelligently observed and interpreted without preju- 
 dice, outweighs all the theories that were ever con-
 
 3l6 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 cocted for the sole purpose of evading the obvious 
 significance of the phenomena. The only way to 
 ascertain what a sentient creature knows is to 
 observe what it does. If it acts intelligently, it 
 must be presumed to be intelligent until the con- 
 trary is demonstrated. If it observes the laws of its 
 being and invariably acts in accordance therewith, 
 it must be presumed to have a knowledge of those 
 laws, even though materialistic science may fail to 
 find the source of that knowledge in the material 
 world. In short, if it acts just as an intelligent, 
 conscious being ought to act, it must be presumed 
 to be intelligent and conscious until the contrary is 
 clearly proven. 
 
 Applying these facts and principles to the monera, 
 it will readily be seen, not only that the evolution- 
 ists are warranted in their asseveration that it con- 
 tains the potentials of manhood, but that I am 
 justified in declaring that the mental attributes of 
 the moneron cannot be adequately described except 
 in terms that apply to omniscience and omnipotence. 
 
 We may now sum up the attributes and powers of 
 the mind of the moneron which are essentially and 
 potentially divine, as follows: 
 
 1. It apprehends by intuition the essential laws 
 of its being; that is to say, all essential truth per- 
 taining to its state of existence, its stage of develop- 
 ment, and its environment. 
 
 2. It is antecedent to physical organism. 
 
 3. It has power over unorganized matter. 
 
 4. It has the power to create a physical organism 
 out of unorganized matter. 
 
 5. It has the power to create other mental organ-
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 317 
 
 isms, complete and individualized, out of its own 
 mental organism, by a simple act of volition (repro- 
 duction). 
 
 6. It has the power to create new species (amoeba). 
 
 7. It transmits by inheritance its essential char- 
 acteristics and powers. 
 
 8. Its dominant instinct is creative. 
 
 9. Finally, its dominant emotion is essentially 
 altruistic. 
 
 Can the mind of man conceive of a finite, sentient 
 creature, possessing in essential purity more god- 
 like attributes than are here enumerated? 
 
 By extension alone to infinity they correspond 
 to the highest conceptions of God, the God of 
 Christian faith, a God of infinite knowledge, a 
 God of infinite power, a God of infinite love. 
 
 Whence were these attributes and powers derived ? 
 That is a question lor science to answer; and we 
 propose to submit the question to that august 
 tribunal, stipulating only that it shall employ the 
 inductive method of conducting the investigation, 
 and that its decision shall be founded upon observ- 
 able facts and known laws. The facts are before us, 
 and no one disputes them. What of the laws ? 
 
 Science tells us that it has conducted an exhaus- 
 tive investigation of facts, covering a period of a 
 somewhat indefinite number of aeons, but extending 
 from the monera to man, and that it has found that 
 the law of heredity is universal. In other words, 
 science knows of no law under which a faculty of 
 mind can be acquired except that of heredity. It 
 knows that innumerable facts exist bearing upon 
 this question, and that they all conspire to demon-
 
 318 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 strate the universality of that law. Applying the 
 infallible test of the validity of a law, namely, the 
 ability to make inerrant predictions under it, science 
 avers that it can, by an analysis of the mental facul- 
 ties of any sentient creature, predict with absolute 
 certainty the quality and kind of mental faculties 
 that its offspring will possess ; and that it can, with 
 equal certainty, determine the character of the 
 faculties possessed by its ancestor. If therefore 
 there is an exception to this law of hereditary trans- 
 mission of mental attributes, science knows nothing 
 of it. That is to say, science has never yet discov- 
 ered one fact in nature that hints of the existence of 
 any means of acquiring mental faculties other than 
 that of inheritance from an ancestral mind endowed 
 with faculties identical in kind. 
 
 Planting himself, therefore, upon the facts that 
 are known to exist, and upon a law that is universal, 
 and insisting upon the strict application of the 
 processes of induction as being the only legitimate 
 method of scientific inquiry, the theistic evolutionist 
 declares that divine faculties are andean be nothing 
 less than a divine heritage. 
 
 Now let us inquire, What possible objection can 
 science offer to this conclusion? Practically but 
 one objection has ever been offered; for all others 
 are but varying forms of that one. Professor 
 Haeckel has advanced it in its simplest, crudest, 
 and most direct form. His objection is that its 
 acceptance requires us to believe in a "supernatural 
 miracle," i.e., a special creation by "supernatural " 
 means. This objection, if it had the slightest 
 adumbration of truth in or about it, would be valid
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 319 
 
 and conclusive. For no true scientist can accept a 
 hypothesis that involves a belief in a miracle, or in 
 anything supernatural, much less a "supernatural 
 miracle." The anti-theistic scientist does not 
 believe that there is any God to perform a miracle; _ 
 and the theistic scientist entertains too profound a "j 
 reverence for God, a conception of his wisdom and 
 power too exalted, to admit for one moment that 
 his original plan of creation was so imperfect that , 
 it became necessary to supplement it by special 
 creations or miracles. r 
 
 Is it necessary, then, to posit a miracle, or a 
 special creation, on the basis of a belief in divine 
 inheritance of mental faculties? Clearly not. It is 
 only necessary to posit an intelligent origin for 
 intelligence; a mental origin for mind; an intelli- 
 gent creative energy, or a being endowed with 
 intelligence and creative energy, as the progenitor 
 of other intelligent beings who are endowed with 
 the same powers. This is the natural order of 
 things so far as scientific research has been able to 
 inform mankind ; and the burden of proof rests upon 
 the one who seeks to show that the same law did not 
 prevail at the beginning of organic life. Being in 
 the natural order of inheritance, the event itself 
 must be presumed to have occurred within the 
 domain of natural law. A miracle cannot be 
 posited upon a showing of intelligence. 
 
 It requires no greater strain upon the credulity of 
 man to suppose a mental origin for mind than it does 
 to suppose an electrical origin for electricity. We 
 might just as reasonably deny that the electricity of 
 the earth has its source in the electrical energy of
 
 320 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the universe, as deny that the mental energy which 
 we see manifested on this planet has its source in a 
 universal mind. It would be just as reasonable to 
 hold that electricity has its origin in its terrestrial 
 non-conductors, as to hold that organic life and 
 mind had their origin in inanimate, inorganic, insen- 
 sate, terrestrial matter. Not that I would insinuate 
 that the two suppositions are logical equivalents ; 
 for they are not. The electrical supposition would 
 be simple lunacy. But the supposition that intelli- 
 gence exists in stones and mud is the fundamental 
 hypothesis of fetichism. I hasten to say that this 
 last remark is not intended as a slur on the religion 
 of the fetich worshiper. Far from it. It is in the 
 nature of a vindication, for his theory is just as well 
 fortified by facts as is that of the atheistic " scientist." 
 Considered as inductive philosophies, therefore, they 
 are entitled to equal consideration. In point of fact, 
 the parallelism is about complete. Thus, (a) the 
 two theories of the ultimate origin and source of 
 life and mind meet in the same inanimate object, 
 (b) They are equally destitute of facts or of reason 
 to support them, (c) The same facts of nature 
 unite in protest against both theories. (d) The 
 fetichist worships the inanimate object or substance in 
 which the two theories locate life and mind, (e) The 
 atheistic philosopher elevates his materialistic science 
 into a fetich and worships that. Speaking, there- 
 fore, with the careful precision of a definitive formula, 
 it must be held that the atheistic theory of the origin 
 of mind and life is a recrudescence of fetichism. 
 
 To return to our electrical comparison,! repeat that 
 it is just as reasonable to suppose that the mental
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 321 
 
 organisms of the monera are segregated parts of a 
 universal mind as to suppose that the electricity 
 which we find in the earth is a part of the electrical 
 energy of the universe. Each is a form of energy, 
 a mode of motion, if you please. Each is universal 
 and all-pervasive, so far as we are able to perceive. 
 The universal electrical energy, not by means of a 
 miracle, but in pursuance of a universal law, im- 
 pinged upon this planet and found its sphere of local 
 activity in the various substances best adapted to 
 the purpose. In one substance it produces certain 
 phenomena; in other substances certain other phe- 
 nomena. In some cases it appears to be entirely 
 severed from all connection with the universal. 
 It can be artificially detached and made to do work, 
 as in an electrical machine or in a magnet. In the 
 latter form we find that nature has stored it up in 
 the lodestone or magnetic iron ore, etc. That it 
 is separated only in appearance or in its visible 
 effects, is quite probable. In other words, that it 
 still maintains a connection with the universal elec- 
 trical energy may be conceded. 
 
 In like manner it may be supposed that the uni- 
 versal energy which we call mind seizes upon the 
 proper material of this earth, pervades it, and pro- 
 duces its corresponding phenomena ; and in like man- 
 ner we find that this energy apparently emanates 
 from the universal energy. It is individualized in 
 the moneron and its posterity, and apparently leads 
 an independent life. I say " apparently," for it is 
 not necessary to suppose that it has severed its con- 
 nection with the universal mind, any more than it is 
 necessary to suppose that the electrical energy of the 
 
 21
 
 322 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 
 
 earth is dissociated from that of the whole universe. 
 Nor is it necessary to posit a miracle in either case. 
 On the contrary, the phenomena in each case pro 
 claim a universal law, and reveal a universal, all- 
 pervasive, omnipresent energy, not inherent in 
 matter, but immanent in the universe, In each case 
 certain forms or compositions of matter are required 
 as a basis for the phenomenal manifestation of its 
 energy. That is all. In neither case does the 
 medium generate the force or energy. Magnetic 
 oxide of iron, or an iron bar, is a good medium for 
 the manifestation of magnetic phenomena. But 
 the magnet does not generate the force. That force 
 comes from without, from the great source of 
 electrical energy, which is coextensive with the uni- 
 verse. It is simply a form of electrical energy that 
 finds a medium of manifestation in certain material 
 ._ compounds. 
 
 Protoplasm is the physical medium through which 
 mind manifests itself. In this sense it is " the 
 physical basis of life," as Huxley terms it; but in no 
 other. It does not generate mind. That, too, comes 
 from without, from an eternal source, a constant, 
 ever-present, all-pervasive force or energy that finds 
 in protoplasm a medium through which the phenom- 
 ena of life and mind may be manifested on this 
 planet. 
 
 Many will ask the question, " How can a mind 
 be segregated from the Infinite mind so as to become 
 an individualized independent entity?" Some will 
 employ the usual atheistic formula for evading un- 
 welcome conclusions, and cut the matter short by 
 declaring that it is " unthinkable." Others will look
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 323 
 
 wise, shake their heads, and declare that it is " incon- 
 ceivable; " and, because no one can tell just how it 
 is done, many will declare that it is " impossible." 
 
 Obviously no one can tell how the Almighty does , 
 his wondrous work ; and it is not a legitimate ques- 
 tion to ask. The real question is, first, Can one mind 
 be segregated from another and both become in- 1 
 dividualized, independent entities? If the facts of 
 nature answer this question in the affirmative, we may \ 
 well suppose that the wisdom and power of God are 
 equal to the task of doing his part of the work in 
 his own way. The answer, then, is that the mind \ 
 of every living creature on earth was derived from 
 another mind. The act of reproduction by unicel- 
 lular organisms is a tangible answer to that question; 
 for it can be witnessed at any time by any one who 
 will take the trouble to look. The fission of the 
 amoeba or of the moneron is an act by which one 
 mind is segregated from another, each being and 
 remaining intact; and as each in turn reproduces 
 itself in the same manner, and so on indefinitely, it 
 follows, as Weisman remarks, that the unicellular 
 organism is "potentially immortal." And if Weis- 
 man's " germ-plasm " theory is correct, each living 
 creature contains within itself a part of the original 
 moneron from which it descended. This may also 
 be true under the "gemmule" theory of Darwin and 
 his followers. 
 
 Be that as it may, the fact remains that the segre- 
 gation of one mind from another, in both sexual and 
 asexual reproduction, is one of the universal facts 
 in nature. It is, indeed, the one essential fact in 
 heredity.
 
 324 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 One further consideration should not be lost sight 
 of, and that is that reproduction is largely, if not 
 wholly, a mental act or function. Those who hold 
 that physical organism generates mind will not admit 
 this to be true so far as the higher animals are con- 
 cerned. But no one can deny that it is true of the 
 moneron ; for there is no physical organism in that 
 creature to complicate the question. The mind that 
 invests it acts wholly upon unorganized matter. The 
 act of fission, therefore, was wholly due to mental 
 energy. It was an act of volition prompted by an 
 emotional impulse. And that impulse was the pri- 
 mordial manifestation of the constant force or energy 
 that lies at the bottom of all progressional develop- 
 ment in the physical, mental, moral, and religious 
 worlds. It was primordial altruism, the first act of 
 a sentient creature prompted wholly by the other- 
 regarding impulse, the first manifestation of love 
 on this earth, the first tangible exemplification of 
 mind's creative power. 
 
 Again, a very important point to be noted is that 
 the plasson which constitutes the monera presents 
 a tangible exemplification of what must be true of 
 the divine mind if it is true that the mind of each 
 sentient creature is "a spark of the divine intelli- 
 gence," "a part of the mind of God." If that 
 * theory is true, it necessarily follows that the divine 
 
 i mind is infinitely divisible. It is a conception diffi- 
 cult to grasp, and impossible to formulate in adequate 
 
 ^ finite terms; and yet it has been more or less 
 
 i vaguely entertained by every theist who believes in 
 the Christian doctrine of the fatherhood of God or 
 
 * in the divinity of man. In the moneron, however,
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 325 
 
 we find a concrete example of the indefinite divisi- 
 bility of mind. 
 
 "The monera are," says Haeckel, "homogeneous 
 and structureless; each part of the body is every 
 other part. Each part can absorb and digest nour- 
 ishment; each part is excitable and sensitive; each 
 part can move itself independently ; and, lastly, each 
 part is capable of reproduction and regeneration." l 
 Again he says : " The most remarkable of all monera 
 is the Bathybius, which was discovered by Huxley 
 in 1868. This wonderful moneron lives in the 
 deepest parts of the sea, especially in the Atlantic 
 Ocean, and in places covers the whole floor of the 
 sea in such masses that the fine mud in the latter 
 consists, in great measure, of living slime. The pro- 
 toplasm in these formless nets does not seem differ- 
 entiated at all ; each little piece is capable of forming 
 an individual." 2 And, it may be added, it follows 
 that " each little piece " may be still further divided, 
 either artificially or by reproduction, and so on, 
 indefinitely. 
 
 Here, then, is a concrete fact, easily observable 
 under the microscope, demonstrating not only that 
 one mind can be segregated from another mind, but 
 that mind is in itself indefinitely divisible. More- 
 over, it reveals a law of mind energy which not only 
 lies at the basis of all the subsequent phenomena of 
 heredity and evolutionary development, but requires, 
 as a necessary hypothesis, under the law of heredity, 
 an antecedent mind energy identical in all essential 
 characteristics. To use the language which Pro- 
 
 1 The Evolution of Man, p. 48. 
 
 2 Op. cit. pp. 48, 49.
 
 326 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 fessor Haeckel employed with such transparent in- 
 genuousness in reference to the theory of spontaneous 
 generation, " this assumption is required by the 
 demand of the human understanding for causality." 
 Or, to use the language of Professor Zoellner in 
 reference to the same " spontaneous " theory, it is 
 the " condition necessary to the conceivability of 
 nature in accordance with the laws of causality." ] 
 
 I submit that I have a right to employ these ex- 
 pressions in reference to my theory, and that their 
 authors have not that right with reference to the 
 theory of spontaneous generation. The " demand 
 of the human understanding for causality" is not 
 supplied by assumptions without facts to sustain 
 them ; nor is the " conceivability of nature in accord- 
 ance with the laws of causality " facilitated by the 
 assumption of an inconceivable cause. 
 
 There is a law of induction known to logicians (and 
 sometimes observed by them) which is denominated 
 " the law of parcimony." It was first formulated 
 by Sir William Hamilton, and applied by him to the 
 inductive investigation of the laws of the human 
 mind. The rule is " that no fact be assumed as a 
 fact of consciousness but what is ultimate and 
 simple." 2 It has since been extended into a 
 general rule of inductive observation, and defined 
 as "the principle that nothing shall be assumed 
 as a fact that is not such in reality." 3 Another 
 definition is " sparingness, as in assumptions," 
 which gives a little more latitude. It is a good 
 
 1 Quoted by Haeckel, op. cit. p. 33. 
 
 2 Metaphysics, Lect. XV. p. 186. 
 8 Standard Dictionary.
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 327 
 
 rule, and, as before remarked, it is sometimes 
 observed by logicians, sometimes not. But, to 
 do entire justice to those who do not observe the 
 rule, it must be said that they depart from it only 
 when driven by " necessity," as in the case of those 
 who entertain the theory of spontaneous generation. 
 In that case they boldly abandon the law of parci- 
 mony and assume everything, even the very question 
 at issue; and the only justification offered is the plea 
 of " necessity." 
 
 Now, it may be confidently affirmed that truth that 
 is, any truth that it is important for man to know 
 never drives the logician to any such extremities. 
 Truth is always fortified by facts, laws, and self- 
 evident logicaT^rincipJes or propositions,.^ The facts 
 and the laws may not be known, of course, and 
 hence the truth may lie hidden pending investiga- 
 tion ; but they exist, nevertheless, and sooner or 
 later man will find out all that it is important for 
 him to know. Again, the facts may be known and 
 the laws may be in doubt. In that case hypothesis 
 is a legitimate instrument of logic. But when that 
 instrument is employed there are two inexorable 
 rules that must be observed if truth is the object 
 desired. The first is that there must be some facts 
 to sustain the_hypothesisj and, secondly, one adverse 
 fact is su fficient_to disprove the soundness of any 
 
 __ 
 
 But when the salient facts of any subject of inves- 
 tigation are known, and when some of the funda- 
 mental laws governing its phenomena are discovered, 
 logical induction will generally be found equal to the 
 task of ascertaining the essential truth without the
 
 328 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 necessity of assuming anything but the constancy of 
 nature. 
 
 Now, let us apply these principles to the subject 
 under consideration, the origin of life and mind. 
 The facts have been enumerated in the preceding 
 pages. They are the facts and phenomena of organic 
 and mental evolution, beginning with the moneron 
 and ending with man. The laws which correlate the 
 phenomena and explain the facts, so far as they 
 have been discovered, have been set forth. They 
 are the laws of heredity and of progressive develop- 
 ment. The self-evident logical axioms are the 
 following: 
 
 * I. Every effect or phenomenon in nature has an 
 
 . efficient and appropriate cause. 
 
 I 2. Every cause is commensurable with its effects 
 
 J^or phenomena. 
 
 The first of these propositions is an axiom which 
 everybody admits to be indisputable. The second is 
 more in the nature of a truism, the equivalent of 
 saying that light is caused by a luminous body; that 
 electrical phenomena are caused by electricity, etc. 
 It is but another way of saying that like produces 
 like, that like causes produce like effects; that rain 
 causes dampness; in short, that all causative agencies 
 produce effects that correspond to the nature of the 
 causes. This is what Mr. Herbert Spencer would 
 designate as the "universal postulate;" for "the 
 inconceivableness of its negation " shows that it pos- 
 sesses " unsurpassable validity." l That is to say, it 
 is impossible to conceive the negative of the propo- 
 sition that cause and effect are commensurable. 
 
 1 Principles of Psychology, ii. 2, p. 407.
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 329 
 
 To deny this postulate is to assume an attitude of 
 pure and simple negation; it is to deny the fact of 
 the constancy of nature, to deny that the phenom- 
 ena of nature possess any significance whatever. 
 
 It would be equivalent to an affirmation that the 
 phenomena of nature are to be interpreted by the 
 rule of contraries. It would be equivalent to a 
 wholesale denial of the validity of induction as a 
 process of scientific inquiry. 
 
 Now, let us see what are the logical implications of 
 the affirmative of the postulate. Simply this: that 
 by an examination of the nature of effects or phe- 
 nomena we can always know the nature of their efficient 
 causes. We may not be able to drag the cause to 
 light so as to weigh it in a balance, dissect it with a 
 scalpel, or exhibit it on a stage; but we can know its 
 nature with just as great a degree of certainty as if 
 we could do all those things. Thus, when we see a 
 spring of water gushing from the side of a mountain, 
 we may not be able to reach its source even by tun- 
 nelling the mountain, for it may be many miles dis- 
 tant. But we know the nature of that source. We 
 know that it is a body of water. " But," some one 
 may say, " suppose that nature, in some hidden 
 alembic within the mountain, generates the water 
 from its constituent elements? Its source would not 
 then be ' a body of water.' ' To this it may be re- 
 plied, first, that it would be a body of water, no mat- 
 ter where its elements were combined. But, waiving 
 that point, we should know the nature of the cause, 
 nevertheless. We should know with absolute cer- 
 tainty that within that hidden alembic certain gases 
 had united, in certain definite proportions, to form
 
 330 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the water that constituted the source from which the 
 spring was derived. If an analysis of the waters re- 
 veals the presence of organic impurities, we know 
 that its source, or its channel, was polluted by organic 
 impurities. There is never any mistake about it, 
 and we never attribute organic impurities to inorganic 
 matter. The logic of atheism alone is equal to that. 
 The spring of water teaches another lesson to 
 science which is often overlooked. It is that a 
 stream never rises higher than its source. This is 
 true, not only of flowing water, but of every force in 
 
 - nature." That is to say, the flowing stream is a sym- 
 
 bol in that respect of every other force. Not one 
 of nature's forces, as developed or phenomenally 
 
 I manifested on this planet, equals its potential energy 
 
 , as it exists in the Cosmos. Atheism has sought to 
 
 I make an exception of the greatest of all the mind 
 
 energy of the universe by locating its source in the 
 
 : inorganic world. But there are no exceptions to the 
 
 laws of nature. 
 
 This, however, is a digression. The point I wish 
 to illustrate is the commensurableness of cause and 
 effect, by showing that science commensurates all 
 the facts, laws, principles, and elements of both cause 
 and effect in that simple phenomenon of nature, a 
 spring of water. They are all interrelated and inter- 
 dependent, but not more so than in any and every 
 case where causes operate to produce effects. 
 
 A law as universal as the law of gravitation may 
 now be formulated thus : 
 
 All the causative forces of nature are commensurable 
 with their effects or phenomena. 
 
 It follows that something of the nature or salient
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 331 
 
 characteristics of every causative force may be learned 
 by an examination and study of its visible effects or 
 phenomena. 
 
 In the mean time it may be set down as axiomatic 
 that Nature never erects false signals or guide-posts 
 to deceive the unwary explorer of her domains. She 
 never erects false lights upon her shores to lure the 
 voyager in search of truth upon the rocks and break- 
 ers of error and falsehood, j'acts are divine revela- 
 dons_addressed to the common understanding of 
 mankind, and reason^ is their_diyinely commissioned 
 interpreter. Every fact has a meaning, and, properly 
 interpreted, it constitutes an advanced step in the 
 direction of ultimate truth. 
 
 It will now be seen that we have a means of know- 
 ing the essential character of that potential energy, 
 that causative force, which produced the effect or 
 phenomena of mind and life on this planet. Under 
 the law which has been formulated, and which may 
 be designated as the law of commensurable cause 
 and effect, together with the law of heredity, we may 
 learn the nature of the cause of mind by studying its 
 effects or phenomena. 
 
 We know, therefore, 
 
 1. That it is a mind energy or force; for we 
 observe that its effects or phenomena are those of 
 mind. 
 
 2. It is an organized, conscious intelligence; for 
 its effects are organized, conscious intelligences. 
 
 3. It is a creative energy (omnipotence), for its 
 resultant mind organisms possess creative powers. 
 
 4. It is a constant energy or force tending towards 
 progressive development; for its resultant mind
 
 332 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAA r . 
 
 energy constitutes the progressive potential of all 
 evolutionary development. 
 
 5. It possesses an intuitive knowledge of all truth 
 that is essential to its state of existence (omnis- 
 cience) ; for the lowest mental organism on earth is 
 endowed with identical powers, differing in exact 
 proportion to its stage of development. 
 
 6. It is an altruistic intelligence (a God of love), 
 for the instinct of altruism, beginning with the 
 monera, dominates the world, physical, mental, 
 moral, and religious. 
 
 7. It is an intelligence transmissible by inherit- 
 ance ; for that is the only method by which mental 
 faculties are transmitted in the organic world. 
 
 8. Finally, it is an infinite intelligence ; for the 
 mental faculties of the lowest order of animal life, by 
 infinite extension, would be infinite in knowledge, 
 power, and love. 
 
 These are some of the things that we may know 
 of the nature and attributes of the Great First Cause ; 
 for they are the results of the inductive observation 
 of tangible facts that cannot be accounted for on any 
 other hypothesis. They are not conclusions resulting 
 either from intuition, guesswork, or assumption. 
 They are conclusions which must of necessity be 
 valid if the facts of cause and effect are interrelated. 
 The only way to cast a shade of doubt upon their 
 validity would be by demonstrating that cause and 
 effect have no necessary relation to each other. 
 
 And this, in fact, is the logical attitude of atheism 
 regarding this question. 
 
 We might pause here and rest our case upon the 
 overwhelming preponderance of evidence thus far
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY.. 333 
 
 adduced in behalf of Christian theism. But I should 
 fail to do justice to those eminent scientists who have 
 thus far furnished the facts for my induction, did I 
 neglect to give due attention to the strongest array 
 of facts and arguments that they have presented in 
 support of the general theory of organic evolution. 
 I shall pay due regard to those facts and arguments 
 for two good and sufficient reasons. The first is 
 that they present conclusive evidence of the truth of 
 the doctrine of evolution ; and the second is that the 
 same facts and arguments leave absolutely nothing to 
 be desired in the way of proof of the truth of the 
 theistic hypothesis.
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 
 
 The Strongest Argument in Favor of the Evolutionary Hypothesis. 
 The Analogical Argument from Ontogeny to Phylogeny. 
 Haeckel's Great Work Demonstrative of its Validity. But he 
 was in Search of Atheistic Arguments. He found None. 
 On the Contrary, he found Proofs of Theism. General Remarks 
 in re the Analogical Argument. Invalid unless the Phenomena 
 and Laws are the Same. The Present Argument Valid. 
 Ontogeny a Repetition of Phylogeny. Phylogeny the Cause of 
 Ontogeny under the Law of Heredity. The Primordial Germ 
 and the Germinal Cell Identical in Character and Attributes. 
 The Importance of this Fact. The Later Forms of the Human 
 Embryo correspond with the Salient Steps in Phylogeny. The 
 Law of Heredity the Cause of the Correspondence. Evidence 
 Comparable to that of Successive Geological Strata. Man 
 recognizes his Earliest Earthly Ancestor by its Resemblance to 
 the Form which marked his Earliest Embryotic Form. Haeckel's 
 " Fundamental Law of Organic Evolution " formulated. The 
 Debt that Science owes to Haeckel. The Pains he has taken 
 to develop Facts that disprove his Anti-Theistic Beliefs. His 
 Method of accounting for his Facts not so Ingenuous, or he 
 has failed to see their Trend. His Invitation to Philosophers. 
 His Promised Rewards to those who will explain Ontogeny 
 phylogenetically. His own Conclusions arrived at only by 
 ignoring his Facts. Next Chapter will explain Ontogenetic 
 Facts phylogenetically, and carry the Analogical Argument to 
 its Legitimate Conclusion. 
 
 TF any intelligent evolutionist, who is familiar with 
 -*- the leading facts and arguments in support of 
 the theory of organic evolution, were asked what 
 is the strongest and most convincing array of facts 
 and arguments in favor of that doctrine,, he would 
 most likely answer that it is the analogical argument
 
 HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 335 
 
 from the ontogeny of the germinal cell to the_ph}^- 
 Jogeny of the primordial germ. If he be familiar 
 with the best literature on the subject, he will doubt- 
 less cite Professor Haeckel's great work on " The 
 Evolution of Man " as the first, and in many respects 
 the best, treatise in which that particular branch of 
 the subject is exhaustively treated, and in such a man- 
 ner as to make it popularly available. Its sub-title 
 is " A Popular Exposition of the Principal Points of 
 Human Ontogeny and Phylogeny." 
 
 I have already spoken of its high standing in the 
 scientific world ; and I have availed myself of many 
 of the facts which he was the first to promulgate, and 
 of which he was the first to recognize the scientific 
 value./ It is true that I have given an interpretation 
 to the facts relating to the monera that is diametri- 
 cally opposed to his, and I have invested them with a 
 higher scientific value than he did. He was in search 
 of the hypothetical connecting link between organic 
 life and inorganic chemical compounds. In other 
 words, he was in search of evidence to prove that 
 life and mind originated from something that is the 
 very opposite of both life and mind. He was, in 
 fact, in pursuit of evidence to prove that there is no 
 God. 
 
 He found no such evidence. On the contrary, he 
 brought to light a series of facts exactly adapted to 
 the uses of his opponents. And I undertake to say 
 that if the combined hosts of Christian believers could 
 unite their wisdom, they could not imagine a series of 
 facts better adapted than his to prove the existence 
 of the God of Christian faith, and at the same time to 
 prove that God rules this universe by means of im-
 
 336 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 mutable law. The world can never repay the debt of 
 gratitude it owes to Professor Haeckel for the fear- 
 lessness and scientific integrity exhibited in promul- 
 gating a series of facts that, unless blinded by 
 prejudice, he must have known were wellnigh demon- 
 strative of the theory that he repudiated. He has 
 given us the facts so minutely detailed and so amply 
 verified that atheism can neither deny their existence 
 nor their theistic significance. 
 
 But that is not the only service Professor Haeckel 
 has rendered to Christian theism. He has furnished 
 arguments as well, and his arguments are backed by 
 an invincible phalanx of facts. I refer particularly to 
 his analogical argument from ontogeny to phylogeny. 
 It is true that he employs it solely for the purpose 
 of demonstrating the truth of the evolutionary hy- 
 pothesis ; but, as I shall undertake to show, it is as 
 clearly demonstrative of theism as it is of evolution. 
 In point of fact, it leaves nothing to be desired in the 
 way of evidence for either evolution or theism. 
 
 Before proceeding to the consideration of the argu- 
 ment from ontogeny, I desire to make a remark in 
 reference to analogical arguments in general. In one 
 of my former works l I ventured to animadvert upon 
 the practice, which has obtained for many years 
 among certain polemics of high degree, which con- 
 sists in the reckless employment of the analogical 
 ', argument. This form of reasoning is abused prob- 
 i ably more than any other, partly owing to its plau- 
 sible character, and partly to a lack of power to 
 i discriminate between fanciful illustration and proof, 
 \ between poetic license and scientific demonstration. 
 1 See " A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life," chap. ii.
 
 HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 337 
 
 One of the most common examples of the abuse of 
 this form of argument is shown in reasoning from the 
 metamorphosis of the caterpillar into the butterfly 
 up to an immortal life for man. It is invalid, for the 
 simple reason that the laws which govern the one are 
 not identical with those which obtain in the other. 
 The rule is that no analogical argument is valid from^ 
 a scientific, or inductive, point of view unless it can ,' 
 be shown that the laws governing the phenomena ob- 
 served are identical with those of the subject-matter^ 
 under investigation. 
 
 I recall the attention of the logical reader to this 
 rule for the purpose of reminding him that Professor 
 Haeckel's analogical argument from ontogeny to 
 phylogeny possesses the highest degree of validity; 
 for the laws are obviously the same. There is, in- 
 deed, a causal relation between them, as will be seen 
 later on. 
 
 The general proposition is stated in the language 
 of Professor Haeckel, as follows : 
 
 " The history of the evolution of organisms consists " 
 of two closely connected parts : ontogeny, which is the \ 
 history of the evolution of individual organisms ; and phy- 
 logeny, which is the history of the evolution of organic 
 tribes. Ontogeny is a brief and rapid recapitulation of f 
 phylogeny, dependent on the physiological functions of 
 heredity (reproduction) and adaptation (nutrition). The ' 
 individual organism reproduces in the rapid and short ' 
 course of its own evolution the most important of the I 
 changes in form through which its ancestors, according to 
 the law of heredity and adaptation, have passed in the 
 slow and long course of their paleontological evolution." * - 
 
 1 The Evolution of Man, vol. i. pp. i, 2. 
 22
 
 338 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 Here, then, we have a clear and comprehensive 
 statement of one of the greatest and most significant 
 facts in nature. Ontogeny is the history of the 
 development or evolution of individual organisms. 
 Human ontogeny is the history of the development 
 or evolution of the germinal cell of man from the 
 moment of conception to maturity. Human phylog- 
 eny is the history of the evolution of the primordial 
 germ from the moneron to man. Phylogeny is_re- 
 peated in ontogeny. That is to say, the human 
 embryo begins its history as a unicellular organism, 
 microscopic in size, and possessing all the salient 
 characteristics of the lowest unicellular organism 
 known to science. In point of fact, there is a short 
 period when the human embryo reverts to a form- 
 less, structureless condition. Of this our author 
 remarks : 
 
 " At present, therefore, the majority of observers assume 
 that between the original nucleated egg-cell and the 
 known nucleated parent-cell there is a stage in which there 
 is no real cell-kernel or nucleus, and in which, therefore, 
 the form value of the whole organic individual is no longer 
 that of a true nucleated cell, but that of a non-nucleated 
 cytode, i. e. a simple protoplasmic body in which no true 
 cell-kernel (nucleus) is to be found." l 
 
 Of the importance of this fact Professor Haeckel 
 has this to say : 
 
 " We regard it as a fact of the greatest interest that the 
 human child, like that of every other animal, is, in this 
 first stage of its individual existence, a non-nucleated ball 
 of protoplasm, a true cytode, a homogeneous, structureless 
 
 i Op. cit. p. 178.
 
 HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 339 
 
 body, without different constituent parts. For in this r 
 ' monerula-form ' the structure of the animal, and thus of 
 the human organism, is of the simplest conceivable nature. / 
 The simplest known organisms, and at the same time the 
 simplest conceivable organisms, are the ' monera,' most of 
 which are minute, microscopic, and formless bodies, con- 
 sisting of a homogeneous substance, of an albuminous or ' 
 mucous soft mass, and which, though they are not com- 
 posed of diverse organs, are yet endowed with all the vital 
 qualities of an organism. They move, feed, and reproduce i 
 themselves by division. These monera are of great impor- 
 tance, owing to the fact that they afford the surest starting- 
 point for the theory of the origin of life on our earth. We I 
 shall presently have further occasion to point out their 
 significance. Here we need only give due weight to the 
 very remarkable fact that, both in germ history and tribal i 
 history, the animal organism begins its evolution as a 
 structureless mucous ball. The human organism, like that 
 of the higher animals, exists for a short time in this sim- 
 plest conceivable form, and its individual evolution com- ' 
 mences from this simplest form. The entire human child, 
 with all its great future possibilities, is in this stage only a 
 small, simple ball of primitive slime (protoplasm)." l 
 
 I have been thus particular in quoting somewhat ^ 
 at length what Professor Haeckel has to say in 
 reference to the beginning of the ontogenetic history I 
 of the embryo of man for the reason that I regard it 
 as possessing greater evidential value than any other ^ 
 stage of development. The particular reasons will 
 more fully appear hereinafter. 
 
 The later forms of the embryo corresponding to 
 those of the phylogenetic series cannot be described 
 
 1 Op. cit. p. 178 et seq.
 
 340 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 in detail in a work like this, and the curious reader 
 must be referred to the work from which I have 
 quoted. It must be said, however, that the series 
 of gradients is necessarily far from complete. The 
 history of untold ages of years cannot be repeated in 
 all its details within the space of three quarters of 
 a year. Nevertheless, the evidential value of what 
 we have is not in the least impaired ; for the salient 
 features are reproduced with such circumstantiality 
 of detail as to leave no room for rational doubt of 
 the fact thatjiuman phylogeny is repeated in human 
 ontogeny. Moreover, this being true, it follows that 
 a causal relation exists between the two. That is to 
 say, phylogeny is the cause of ontogeny; and this 
 in turn is demonstrative of the never-failing potency 
 and the far-reaching significance of the law of 
 heredity. 
 
 We have already seen that, at the beginning of 
 the embryotic life of man, the beginning of organic 
 life on the earth is faithfully and minutely repeated ; 
 and we know that the culmination of both histories is 
 identical. That is to say, Jiuman phylogeny began 
 with the moneron and culminated in man ; and 
 human ontogeny begins with the monerula and 
 culminates in a completely ^formed human being 1 . 
 This of itself constitutes presumptive evidence of 
 the truth of the hypothesis. If, therefore, such of 
 the intermediate steps in the ontogenetic series as 
 are shown to exist are even approximately the same 
 as those in the phylogenetic series, the evidence is 
 conclusive. More especially is this true if the in- 
 termediate steps do not transcend their regular order 
 as they occur in the phylogenetic series. In other
 
 HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 34! 
 
 words, the value of the evidence is greatly enhanced 
 by, if indeed it does not depend upon, the fact that the 
 forms as they are developed in the ontogenetic series 
 are never reversed in the order of their development 
 in the phylogenetic series. 
 
 Thus, the human embryo at a certain period has^ 
 essentially the anatomical structure of the lancelet, 
 later of a fish, and in subsequent stages those of 
 amphibian and mammal forms. Moreover, in the ' 
 further evolution of these mammal forms those first, 
 appear which stand lowest in the series, namely, 
 forms allied to the beaked animals (OrnitJwrhynchus} ; . 
 then those allied to pouched animals (Marsupialia), 
 which are followed by forms most resembling apes ; 
 till at last the peculiar human form is produced as 
 the final result. 1 The point is that the order of , 
 development of these forms in the ontogenetic series 
 is never reversed ; and that, as far as they go, they \ 
 correspond to the orderly sequence of their develop- 
 ment in the phylogenetic series. This of itself is j 
 demonstrative of the causal relation between the 
 two series and the dominating influence of the law_ 
 of heredity in the process of organic evolution. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the evidence in this case" 
 is analogous in character to that by which we deter- 
 mine the orderly sequence of geological strata. No j 
 one place has yet been discovered on our earth 
 where all the geological strata are present in the I 
 order in which they were deposited. Nevertheless 
 we know the order in which they were formed by 
 comparison of the formations shown in different 
 localities; and we know the order was never re* , 
 1 See " The Evolution of Man," vol. i. p. 3.
 
 342 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 versed, for the reason that we never find an older 
 stratum above a later one. Thus, we never find the 
 Cambrian overlying the Silurian, or the Devonian 
 underlying either the Cambrian or the Silurian. The 
 latter may be absent in a given locality, but it will 
 never be found anywhere either above the Devo- 
 nian or below the Cambrian. Hence the geologist 
 , knows beyond the shadow of a doubt the orderly 
 sequence of geological formations; and with these 
 data he can " reconstruct the past and predict the 
 
 ^ future." 
 
 In like manner the scientific evolutionist knows 
 his ground. He knows, from a comparative analysis 
 of phylogenetic and ontogenetic forms, that a causal 
 relation must exist between the two ; and that con- 
 viction becomes a certainty when he knows that the 
 order in which those forms are developed in the 
 two series is exactly the same. And he, too, is thus 
 enabled to reconstruct the past and predict the 
 
 i future; for he recognizes in this law the "one touch 
 of nature " that literally " makes the whole world 
 kin." He finds the key to his own pedigree in his 
 own ontogeny; and he finds its details recorded, 
 
 \ with unerring certainty and exactitude, in his own 
 phylogeny. Step by step he traces his ancestry 
 back through myriads of forms and aeons of time 
 to the very beginning of organic life ; and he recog- 
 nizes his earliest earthly ancestor by its identity in 
 form and substance with that which marked the first 
 
 ^ stage in his own embryotic life and development. 
 
 From this induction, backed by innumerable facts, 
 each pointing toward the one conclusion, he infers 
 a law, " the fundamental law of organic evolution"
 
 HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 343 
 
 as Haeckel emphatically puts it; "or more briefly, 
 the first principle of biogeny" l 
 
 The following is Professor Haeckel's formal state- 
 ment of the law : 
 
 ~v~ 
 
 "This fundamental law, ... on the recognition of \ 
 which depends the thorough understanding of the history 
 of evolution, is briefly expressed in the proposition that 
 the history of the germjs aji_epitqme of the history of the 
 descent ; or, in_other words, that ontogeny is a recapitu- 
 lation of pjiylogeny ; or, somewhat more explicitly, that 
 the series of forms through which the individual ^organism 
 Basses during its progress_from the egg cell_ to its fully 
 developed state is a J>rief^ compressed reproduction qf 
 the long series_of forms through which the animal ances- 
 tors of that organism (or the ancestral forms of its species) 
 have passed from the earlies^jaeriods of so-called organic 
 creaticm down lo_the_presejat time. 
 
 "The causal nature of the relation which connects 
 the history of the germ (embryology or ontogeny) with 
 that of the tribe (phylogeny) is dependent on the phe- ' 
 nomena of heredity and adaptation. When these are 
 properly understood, and their fundamental importance 
 in determining the forms of organisms recognized, we 
 may go a step further, and say : phylogenesis is the 
 mechanical cause of ontogenesis. The evolution of the . 
 tribe, which is. dependent on the laws of heredity and 
 adagtation^effects all the events which take place in the 
 course of the evolution of the germ or embryo."* 
 
 I have thus briefly set forth, mostly in the language 
 of its ablest exponent, the most important fact in the 
 history of organic evolution, as well as the strongest 
 
 1 " Biogeny " is the history of organic evolution in its widest sense. 
 a Op. cit. vol. i. pp. 6, 7.
 
 344 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 argument in support of the evolutionary hypothesis. 
 It is but simple justice to Professor Haeckel to say 
 that his facts are beyond dispute. Their development 
 is the result of years of herculean labor and consci- 
 entious research; and his love of truth for its own 
 sake is demonstrated by the infinite pains he has 
 taken to develop facts, even though they disprove 
 his anti-theistic beliefs. His conclusions, so long as 
 he keeps within the domain of organic evolution, are 
 also eminently just and legitimate. That is to say, 
 from the moneron to man, inclusive of both, no true 
 scientist will gainsay either his facts or his conclusions. 
 It is only when he attempts to go back of the mo- 
 neron in search of efficient causes that he fails to see 
 the true significance of the facts that he has brought 
 to light. It is there that his ingenuousness ceases to 
 be conspicuous, excepting in his confession that he 
 has adopted a conclusion which is unsustained by 
 any fact or phenomenon of nature. This, however, I 
 have already pointed out. I now propose to inquire 
 what further conclusions are legitimately derivable 
 from the great law of interrelated 'and interdepen- 
 dent phylogeny and ontogeny. I am encouraged to 
 do so because of the learned author's invitation to 
 the philosophical world, to say nothing of the 
 promised results. In the closing chapter of his great 
 work he makes this encouraging observation : 
 
 "The speculative philosopher who will take possession of 
 the facts of ontogeny and explain them phylogenetically 
 (according to that law), will introduce a greater advance 
 in the history of philosophy than has been made by the 
 NN greatest thinkers of all previous centuries." l r 
 1 Op. cit. vol. ii. p. 454.
 
 HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 345 
 
 It must be admitted by the most apathetic that the 
 prize is a glittering one and well worth striving for; 
 but, unfortunately, I am barred out of the race by the 
 professor's terms. In the first place, he qualifies the 
 conditions by declaring, later on, that " it cannot be 
 doubted that these facts, if properly weighed and 
 judged without prejudice," will lead to the professor's 
 own atheistic conclusions. Besides, I am not a 
 " speculative philosopher;" and the promised reward 
 is limited to that class of thinkers. Moreover, the 
 professor has exhibited to us, in his own proper 
 person, a specimen of the kind of speculative phi- 
 losopher that is required for his purposes. Judging 
 from the sample, and the task to be performed, it 
 requires a philosopher who will adopt Professor 
 Haeckel's facts as his premises and ignore them in 
 his conclusions. In other words, there is no way of 
 arriving at the professor's conclusions in relation to 
 the origin of life on this planet except by completely 
 ignoring his facts. This I cannot consent to do, 
 even for the brilliant rewards naturally flowing from 
 the introduction of a new element of confusion and 
 uncertainty into the speculative philosophy " of all 
 previous centuries." I shall, nevertheless, " take 
 possession of the facts of ontogeny and explain them 
 phylogenetically," as I understand them, with special 
 reference to their bearing upon the question of the 
 origin of life.
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE THEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM ONTOGENY AND 
 PHYLOGENY. 
 
 Professor Haeckel's Premises accepted for more than his Estimated 
 Valuation. No Dispute as to Facts. The Matter in Dispute 
 relates to Deductions from Laws agreed upon. The Invisible 
 World not outside the Domain of Law. All Natural Forces 
 Invisible. Deductions from Known Laws always Legitimate. 
 Facts agreed upon by Atheists and Theists : I. Ontogeny repeats 
 Phylogeny. 2. Phytogeny causes Ontogeny. 3. Heredity the 
 Controlling Law. 4. Heredity controls Ontogeny and Phylogeny. 
 
 5. Potentialities of Manhood reside in the Germinal Cell of 
 Man. 6. Also in the Primordial Germ. It follows that (i) the 
 
 , Laws are the same ; (2) that Pre-existent Conditions were the 
 same; (3) that Causes were Identical in Kind. The Ontogenetic 
 and Phylogenetic Series begin alike with the Moneron and end in 
 Man. Each has Identical Powers and Mental Attributes. Con- 
 ditions and Causes being the same, if we find the Cause for one 
 Condition we can safely infer the other. We know why Poten- 
 tials of Manhood reside in the Germinal Cell of Man. Because 
 they were inherited from an Antecedent Mind, that of the Parent. 
 
 Corollary: The Potentialities of Manhood reside in the Mo- 
 neron because they were inherited from an Antecedent Mind, 
 that of the Infinite Parent. No other Conclusion logically Le- 
 gitimate. A Denial is a Repudiation of all Known Laws relating 
 to it, especially that of Heredity. If Nature is constant, the 
 Moneron inherited its Divine Potentialities from the Divine Mind. 
 
 This is the Analogical Argument carried to its Legitimate 
 Conclusion. The Analogy is Incomplete without it, and there- 
 fore Invalid. What does Atheism offer in Refutation ? Spon- 
 taneous Generation. A Theory without a Fact to support it. 
 An Abandonment of Induction. A Guess and a Hope that 
 Somebody may sometime discover (or manufacture) a Fact to sus- 
 tain the Atheist's Guesses. Darwin's Guess and Huxley's Hope. 
 
 Haeckel's Guess without Hope. Ward's Guess and Hope.
 
 ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 347 
 
 Specimens of Atheistic "Induction." Nevertheless the World 
 owes them much ; notwithstanding a Relapse toward Fetichism, 
 they builded better than they knew. Their Facts prove the The- 
 . ory of Evolution, but they also prove the Existence of the God 
 of Christian Faith. 
 
 WE have now before us all the salient facts and 
 phenomena of organic evolution that are 
 necessary to enable us to reach a definite conclusion 
 in regard to the question of the origin of life on this 
 planet. The fundamental law of organic evolution 
 has been stated in the language of its ablest expo- 
 nent, and accepted as correct in every sense of the 
 word. There is, therefore, no disagreement either as 
 to the facts from which the law has been induced, or 
 as to the correctness of the induction. 
 
 It must be remembered, however, that the facts 
 and the law, as thus agreed upon by and between 
 the contending parties, all pertain to the subject of 
 organic evolution as they are manifested in phenom- 
 ena in the visible organic world, beginning with the 
 monera and culminating in man. The_ matter in 
 Dispute lies outside the realm of what is cognizable 
 by the senses. But it is not outside the^ dominion of 
 law. It is not outside the domain of the law which 
 has been found to exist, and which has been formu- 
 lated in the preceding pages of this book. It is purely 
 a matter of deduction from that known fundamental 
 law of organic evolution, that first principle of biog- 
 eny, to which all questions pertaining to the sub- 
 ject-matter must be referred. The fact that a force 
 is invisible does not remove it from the domain 
 of law. All the forces of nature are invisible; and 
 yet we harness them to our uses and formulate their 
 laws. The mind energy that animates the monera is
 
 348 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 invisible ; but it is the creature of law. And so is the 
 source from which the moneron derived its life and 
 mind, whether it resided in the rocks and mud of the 
 inorganic earth or emanated from an infinite ante- 
 cedent mind. The fact that a causal relation existed 
 between the two brings them under the law of " corn- 
 mensuration," 1 and hence under the fundamental law 
 of organic evolution.. That is to say, since the causal 
 forces of nature are always necessarily commensurable 
 with their terrestrial modes or forms of manifestation, 
 it follows that they are governed by the same laws. 
 We may, therefore, deduce from the known law all 
 legitimate conclusions relating to antecedent causes 
 or consequent effects, with the same confidence that 
 we should feel if all the forces of nature were visible. 
 
 Before proceeding to draw our conclusions it will 
 be in order to enumerate the points of agreement 
 between atheistic and theistic evolutionists. In that 
 way the issue between them will be developed and 
 clearly defined, and no time will be wasted in the 
 discussion of irrelevant questions. 
 
 The essential points are the following 
 
 Inductions. 
 
 1. That the history of the development of the 
 human germinal cell, from the monerula to the fully 
 developed human entity, is a recapitulation* of the 
 history of the development of the primordial germ, 
 from the moneron to man ; or, in other words, that 
 ontogeny is a repetition of phylogeny. 
 
 2. That phylogeny is the cause of ontogeny. 
 
 1 See chapter vii. 
 
 " c?T~ ff*1**v-* JLf *
 
 ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 349 
 
 3. That the law of heredity is the agency through 
 which phylogeny controls ontogeny. 
 
 4. That the law of heredity is universal in its 
 application to the subject-matter, beginning with the 
 moneron and culminating in man, on the one hand, 
 and, on the other, beginning with the germinal cell 
 and culminating in a fully developed human entity. 
 
 Deductions. 
 
 1. That the potentialities of manhood reside in 
 the germinal cell of man. 
 
 2. That the potentialities of manhood reside in 
 the primordial germ. 
 
 This, perhaps, is as far as it is prudent to go in 
 assuming the points of agreement between atheism 
 and theism. I have ventured thus far only because 
 the foregoing propositions are all essential to the 
 doctrine of organic evolution, and they have all 
 been insisted upon as fundamental by the atheistic 
 evolutionists. The next step would be some such 
 proposition as that what is true of ontogeny is also 
 true of phylogeny, or that nature is constant, or 
 that nature's laws admit of no exceptions ; each of 
 which propositions atheism tacitly denies when it 
 seeks to account for the origin of life on the theory 
 of spontaneous generation. We must, therefore, 
 now proceed independently to draw conclusions from 
 the premises that have been agreed upon. 
 
 The first proposition is that, if it is true that ontog- 
 eny, by virtue of the law of heredity, is a repetition 
 of phylogeny, it follows that the laws of the two are 
 identical.
 
 350 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 No one can deny this proposition without impeach- 
 ing the law of heredity itself; for it is but a restate- 
 ment of the very essence of that law. Its truth 
 is, in fact, self-evident. 
 
 Secondly, since the law of ontogeny is identical 
 with the law of phylogeny, and jince^ identical results 
 have ensued, it follows that the pre-cxistent condi- 
 tions were identical. 
 
 The truth of this proposition also is self-evident. 
 
 Thirdly, since the law, the results, and the condi- 
 tions were each identical, it follows that the causes 
 of those conditions were also identical in character 
 and kind. L*/-^ e->- f^^> <*M. J~> U^^* ja^^t^^ ><*-. 
 
 No person can deny this proposition without im- 
 peaching the constancy of nature. The universal 
 experience of mankind may be invoked to verify it. 
 " Like causes produce like effects." " Identical con- 
 ditions are brought about by causes identical in 
 kind." These are axioms, and they apply with un- 
 varying exactitude in all the broad realm of natural 
 causes and effects. They are, in fact, but varying 
 forms of expressing that universal postulate, the 
 constancy of nature. 
 
 Now, let us see how these propositions apply to 
 the subject-matter under consideration. 
 
 In making this examination we will again return 
 to the beginning of organic life, for the reason that, 
 as has often been repeated, the nearer we approach 
 to its source the more clearly will the observable 
 facts and phenomena reveal the essential character 
 of that source. If facts are to be found in the 
 phylogenetic series that point to spontaneous gener- 
 ation as the source and origin of mind and life, we
 
 ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 351 
 
 must expect to find them there; "for," in the lan- 
 guage of Haeckel, " the monera actually stand on the 
 very boundary between organic and inorganic natural 
 bodies." On the other hand, if facts are to be found 
 in either ontogeny or phylogeny that point to a 
 divine origin of mind and life, we must still expect 
 to find it at the beginning of organic life, for the 
 monera also stand on the very boundary between 
 the realms of mind and matter. Literally, the 
 monera stand nearer to God than any other sentient 
 creatures. 
 
 Now, we have already learned from Professor 
 Haeckel that this, the beginning of organic life in 
 the phylogenetic series, is exactly repeated in the 
 beginning of human ontogeny. We have also learned 
 that the salient features of phylogeny are repeated in 
 orderly sequence in ontogjeny. And, finally, that 
 the culmination in each of the two series is identical 
 with that in the other. In short, they both begin 
 with the moneron and culminate in a human being. 
 We also learn, from the same high authority, that the 
 law of heredity constitutes the connecting link be- 
 tween the two series, and hence phylogeny is the 
 cause of ontogeny. Being thus inseparably interre- 
 lated by causal connections, it follows that both series 
 are controlled by the same law. This, then, disposes 
 of my first proposition. 
 
 The second proposition is that since the law and 
 the results are the same, it follows that the pre- 
 existing conditions were identical. 
 
 The conditions referred to are those existing at the 
 beginning alike of phylogeny and ontogeny. Those 
 essential to the present inquiry are the following:
 
 352 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 1. An unorganized, undifferentiated, homogeneous 
 mass of protoplasm. 
 
 2. An unorganized, undifferentiated, homogeneous 
 mass of protoplasm endowed with a mind. 
 
 3. An unorganized, undifferentiated, homogeneous 
 mass of protoplasm endowed with a mind in which 
 inhere the potentialities of manhood. 
 
 These are the conditions that are common to the 
 beginnings of the two series of events. They are the 
 basic conditions upon which depend all the other 
 steps in the two series^ The physical conditions are 
 the same in both ; and necessarily the mental condi- 
 tions are identical, or the final results could not be 
 the same. We know, therefore, that the conditions 
 are the same, for we know that the final result a 
 human being is identical. 
 
 Thus far no scientific evolutionist, atheistic or 
 theistic, will gainsay either my propositions or my 
 conclusions ; for they are all elementary deductions 
 from the fundamental principle of organic evolution, 
 as laid down by its ablest exponent. 
 
 The third proposition is that, the conditions being 
 the same, it follows that the causes of those condi- 
 tions were identical in character and kind. This 
 proposition, as before remarked, no person can deny 
 without impeaching the constancy of nature. 
 
 The conditions for which we are in search of a 
 cause are stated above. The salient feature, which 
 includes the others, is the fact that the mind with 
 which the moneron and the monerula are each en- 
 dowed contains the potentialities of manhood. The 
 question is, What is the cause of this condition? 
 Science tells us that it exists alike in both, and that
 
 ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 353 
 
 it produces identical results in phylogeny and on- 
 togeny, namely, manhood. How does it happen that 
 these globules of protoplasm are thus endowed with 
 such wonderful potentialities ? Science tells us 
 that they are exactly alike in every particular. The 
 chemical constituents of their bodies are the same ; 
 they are equally deficient in structural organism ; 
 their minds have the same powers, attributes, and 
 potentialities ; and the grand results of the exercise 
 of those powers and the development of those poten- 
 tialities are identical, for they culminate in the same 
 human entity. It is, in fact, impossible to imagine 
 conditions more nearly alike or more certainly the 
 result of causes identical in character and kind. 
 
 It follows that if we can ascertain the cause in one 
 case we shall know with equal certainty the exact 
 nature of the cause in the other. There will be no 
 guesswork about it, no soaring into the regions of 
 speculative philosophy in search of some fanciful 
 theory of causation without facts to sustain it. 
 
 Fortunately it so happens that we know why it is 
 that the germinal cell of man, the monerula, the ini- 
 tial organism in human ontogeny, is endowed with 
 the potentialities of manhood. 
 
 We know that it is because the parent from which 
 it emanated was endowed with the attributes and 
 qualities of manhood. 
 
 In other words, we know that it emanated from an 
 antecedent mind which was endowed with the identical 
 attributes and powers that were developed from the 
 initial organism. 
 
 In short, we know that its powers and potentialities 
 were due to the law of heredity. 
 
 23
 
 354 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 Now, let us carry the analogy back to the initial 
 mind-organism in the phylogenetic series. I submit 
 that there is but one legitimate, logical conclusion, 
 and that is that 
 
 The mind of the moneron derived its attributes, pow- 
 ers, and potentialities, rmder the law of heredity, from 
 an antecedent mind which was endowed with the iden- 
 tical attributes and powers, differing only in degree, 
 that were developed from the moneron. 
 
 To put the crucial point of the argument in a 
 nutshell, we may say, 
 
 Why is it that the potentialities of manhood inhere 
 in the germinal cell of man ? Simply because it 
 inherited them from a mind endowed with the actual 
 faculties of manhood, namely, the mind of the finite 
 parent. - *" -*-^-' *-* tf*^ , 
 
 Again, why is it that the potentialities of manhood 
 inhere in the primordial germ? Simply because it 
 inherited them from a mind possessing the actual 
 faculties of manhood, namely,_the mind of the 
 Infinite Parent. Q*+S+*~f~t~+^~*-^ * <i<rU-WAi k * 
 
 I submit that, in the language of Haeckel, this is 
 " taking possession of the facts of ontogeny and 
 explaining them phylogenetically according to that 
 law." 
 
 I submit, further, that there is no other logical, 
 scientific, or reasonable phylogenetic interpretation 
 of the facts of ontogeny. 
 
 Any other possible interpretation of those facts 
 involves the utter repudiation of the law of heredity 
 at the very point where that law is most in evidence, 
 namely, at the beginning of organic life on this planet. 
 It is most in evidence at that point in organic history,
 
 ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 355 
 
 for upon every germinal cell, at the beginning of its 
 ontogenetic history, is stamped the indubitable evi- 
 dence of its descent from the moneron. All through 
 the aeons of time that have elapsed since the begin- 
 ning of phylogenetic history the law of heredity has 
 asserted its supremacy, its constancy, and its univer- 
 sality; and millions of facts occur every day, each 
 one of which bears testimony to this universal truth. 
 If Nature, as science instructs us, is the great teacher 
 of order and uniformity ; if she exhibits no false pro- 
 portions and sounds no discords; if she sets up no 
 false signals to deceive the unwary ; if cause and effect 
 bear any relation to each other, if, in short, Nature 
 is constant, we must suppose that the law of heredity 
 did not originate in the moneron. We must suppose 
 that it, too, was a creature of that law; and that its 
 wonderful faculties and divine potentialities were 
 inherited from a divine mind. 
 
 This, then, is the analogical argument from ontog- 
 eny to phylogeny carried to its legitimate conclu- 
 sion. If the analogy is perfect from man back to the 
 moneron, as atheists very properly insist; if the law 
 governing the two series of events is identical, as 
 atheistic science has very clearly demonstrated, I 
 submit that the analogy is not complete, and is there- 
 fore invalid, until it is carried back to the origin and 
 cause of the life and mind of the moneron as well 
 as that of the monerula. As I stated in the begin- 
 ning, the analogical argument in this case is legiti- 
 mate, valid, and conclusive, because the phenomena 
 are the same and the law is identical. I still adhere 
 to that conclusion and insist upon it. But I also 
 insist that its evidential value depends upon its
 
 356 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 
 
 completeness, and that it is clearly not complete until 
 it is carried as far in phylogeny as it is in ontogeny. 
 
 What, then, has atheism to offer in refutation of 
 this induction? Nothing, absolutely nothing, but the 
 theory of spontaneous generation. As I have re- 
 peatedly dwelt upon the entire absence of facts to 
 sustain that theory, I will content myself with a gen- 
 eral summary of the salient features of the atheistic 
 attitude on this and the subsidiary question as to 
 the origin of species. I have shown that Darwin's 
 theory that natural selection " originated " species 
 was merely an attempt, in behalf of atheism, to sus- 
 tain the theory that physical organism antedated 
 mind, and was, in fact, the cause of mind. I have 
 also shown, by Haeckel's demonstrations and Hux- 
 ley's logic, that exactly the opposite is true, that 
 in all the broad realm of sentient life, mind not only 
 antedates physical organism, but is the cause of all 
 structural changes in organism. 
 
 This, however, I have no intention to dwell upon 
 here. I mention it merely for the purpose of inviting 
 renewed attention to the fact that Huxley admits 
 that Darwin did not present one fact to prove that 
 natural selection ever originated a species. On the 
 contrary, the vast array of facts which Mr. Darwin so 
 ably marshalled to prove his general theory of evolu- 
 tion are all against the theory that natural selection 
 originated species. It preserved species (the fittest), 
 but it did not originate them. 
 
 Nevertheless, while his friend, Professor Huxley, 
 felt compelled to tell the truth about his failure to 
 substantiate his hypothesis, he (Huxley) was fain to 
 express the hope that somebody, on some future
 
 ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 357 
 
 occasion, would show that a new species could be 
 originated by artificial selection, and thus give his 
 friend Darwin's theory one fact to rest upon. 1 
 
 Again, Professor Haeckel's theory of spontaneous 
 generation rests upon the same hopeful foundation. 
 He admits that there are no facts to prove his 
 theory that all experimental facts are against it 
 and he is not quite sure that it can ever be experi- 
 mentally proven, " unless great difficulties are over- 
 come." But he very ably overcomes the difficulty 
 thus encountered by questioning the sanity of those 
 who do not accept his theory. 2 It is presumable, 
 however, that he entertains the hope that somebody, 
 some day, may be able to wrest a sign of life from 
 inorganic matter. But he does not venture to ex- 
 press that hope in words. 
 
 Last, but by no means least, we have our own 
 great American scientist, Professor Lester F. Ward, 
 who is also filled with hope for the future of the 
 science of mind. His hope is in chemistry; and he 
 believes that somebody will some day be able to 
 produce the phenomena of life and mind by the 
 process of " recompounding," or " aggregation," of 
 albuminous compounds. 3 To be sure, it has never 
 yet been done, and there are, of course, no facts to 
 show that it ever can be done ; but hope springs 
 eternal in the atheistic breast just the same. 
 
 These are but specimens of the boasted " inductive 
 methods " of the leading atheistic scientists of Eng- 
 land, America, and Germany, when dealing with the 
 
 1 Darwiniana, p. 75. 
 3 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 32. 
 
 8 Status of the Mind Problem: a Lecture delivered in the 
 National Museum, Washington, 1894.
 
 358 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 problems of the human mind and soul; more espe- 
 cially when the question of the origin of mind and 
 life is involved in their researches. 
 
 If science stands for anything, it stands for truth. 
 If the names I have mentioned suggest anything to 
 those who know of their work, it is science and the 
 inductive methods of research. They have written 
 their names upon the scroll of fame in imperishable 
 characters ; and it was because of their unswerving 
 devotion to truth as it is found revealed in the facts 
 of nature. They set out in search of the origin of 
 life, and when they found man's earliest earthly 
 ancestor, they imagined that they had reached the final 
 goal of their ambition. But it was there that they 
 forever abandoned those methods of inductive re- 
 search that had carried them so successfully through 
 the mazes of evolutionary history. Was it because 
 there were no facts upon which to base an inductive 
 hypothesis of the origin of that life and mind which 
 they found so conspicuously in evidence in man's 
 earliest earthly ancestor? Clearly not. And yet 
 nothing in the history of scientific research is more 
 clearly evident than that they utterly abandoned and 
 repudiated the inductive method at that crucial point 
 in the history of their search for the origin of life. 
 And what did they substitute as a compensation to 
 science for the repudiation of the only method of 
 research by which man can be sure that he knows 
 anything? They substituted a purely speculative 
 hypothesis, the mere statement of which constitutes 
 a rednctio ad absurdum, a theory that suggests 
 nothing but a recrudescence of fetichism divested of 
 its redeeming features.
 
 ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 359 
 
 Why it is that atheistic scientists have chosen to 
 ignore all that vast array of facts that point so unerr- 
 ingly to a divine origin of life and mind, I leave 
 others to judge. There are but two hypotheses to 
 choose from. One is that it was because they had 
 the logical capacity to see that the facts all conspired 
 to prove the divine origin of mind ; and the other is 
 that they had not that capacity. 
 
 However, the world owes them a debt of gratitude 
 for demonstrating the evolutionary hypothesis by 
 means of facts that also prove the divine origin of 
 life and mind. 
 
 If those facts establish the truth of the evolutionary 
 hypothesis, they are equally demonstrative of the 
 theistic hypothesis. And there is no possible way 
 of evading or denying the latter, except by repudiat- 
 ing the law of heredity, the law of cause and effect, 
 the validity of the inductive method of research, 
 in short, there is no possible way of evading the 
 theistic interpretation of those facts except by the 
 repudiation of every rule or axiom of scientific, 
 logical, or rational investigation by which the validity 
 of conclusions can be established. 
 
 I have now briefly outlined the salient facts of 
 organic evolution which bear upon the question of 
 the divine origin of life and mind on this planet. 
 The intelligent reader will not fail to note that in the 
 presentation of the crucial facts and arguments I 
 have not travelled outside of the data furnished by 
 the leading evolutionary scientists. That is to say, I 
 have not, in the later chapters, intruded the new 
 psychology into the argument, nor drawn upon it 
 for data, even for the purpose of fortifying the
 
 360 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 theistic interpretation of the facts of organic evolu- 
 tion. I have pursued this course, as indicated in the 
 introductory chapter of Part II. for the purpose of 
 exhibiting the strength of the theistic argument when 
 based alone upon the facts admitted by atheistic evo- 
 lutionists; thus avoiding possible prejudices against 
 the new psychology. 
 
 Nor will the intelligent Christian reader fail to note 
 that the most important conclusion derivable from 
 what has been said is yet to be stated. And that is 
 that, if our conclusions are valid regarding the divine 
 origin of life.it follows that the truth of the Christian 
 theory of the essential divinity of man is proved be- 
 yond a doubt. 
 
 It now remains to show what light is thrown by the 
 new psychology upon man's divine pedigree.
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 
 
 The True Basis of Reconciliation of Religion and Science. Con- 
 sists in a Truthful Interpretation of the Facts of Nature. There 
 are not Two Orders of Truth, one Scientific and the other 
 Religious. The Old Prophet's Declaration. Man was made in 
 the Image of God. The Common Anthropomorphic Interpre- 
 tation. Due to a Defective Psychology. God was conceived 
 as an Infinite Reasoner. Otherwise an Infinite Inquirer after 
 Facts and a Guesser at Conclusions. The Divine Likeness in 
 the Faculties of the Subjective Mind. Even its Limitations 
 Suggestive of Divine Attributes. The Significance of its Limita- 
 tions. Its Faculties tabulated. Intuition an essentially Divine 
 Attribute. Its Importance in the Organic World. Deductive 
 Reasoning the Concomitant of Intuition. They, with Memory, 
 constitute the Intellectual Faculties of the Subjective Mind. 
 Extended by Infinity, they would be Omniscience. Inconceivable 
 Rapidity of Subjective Mentation. Prodigious Feats of Memory. 
 Illustrative Cases. Dynamic Energy of the Subjective Mind. 
 Telekinesis. Extended to Infinity, it would be Omnipotence. 
 New Testament Examples of Dynamic Force of the Soul. 
 Telepathy. Its Significance. Distance no Obstacle Infinite 
 Extension would constitute Omnipresence. A Channel of Com- 
 munication between God and Man. Prayer and Inspiration. 
 The Natural Emotions. Their Altruistic Character. Infinite 
 Extension would mean Infinite and Universal Love. Thus the 
 Faculties of the Soul, infinitely extended, give us an Omniscient, 
 Omnipotent, Omnipresent God of Infinite and Universal Love. 
 The Highest Possible Conception of Deity. The Conception 
 not Anthropomorphic. It neither limits nor measures God. 
 His Qualities alone revealed. But it shows that Man was made 
 in the Image of God. This much Man may know of God. 
 Not that it reveals Human Attributes in God, but Divine Attri- 
 butes in Man. Man's Place in Nature. His Obligations and 
 Duties. 
 
 I 
 
 HAVE now outlined the leading facts of organic 
 evolution which conspire to prove beyond a
 
 362 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 doubt the existence of an infinite intelligence a 
 divine mind which is the origin and the great first 
 cause of life and mind on this planet. By the aid of 
 those great scientists to whom the world is indebted 
 for the facts and arguments which demonstrate the 
 essential truth of the theory of organic evolution, I 
 have been able to trace the descent of man back to 
 a divine ancestry. I might pause here; for it is 
 sufficiently evident, from what has already been said, 
 not only that a divine intelligence exists, but that an 
 intimate personal relationship exists between that 
 divine intelligence and mankind. It is, in fact, 
 sufficiently evident that God is our Father, and that 
 it was therefore a calm statement of a literal truth, 
 and "not an Oriental extravagance or a figure of 
 speech, that Jesus employed when he proclaimed 
 the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. 
 The inerrant intuitions of the Man of Nazareth are 
 thus made manifest by the inductions of modern 
 science; and thus the great fundamental principle of 
 the Christian religion is shown to rest upon a firm 
 scientific foundation as well as upon the authority of a 
 divine intuition or revelation. It is shown that there 
 are not two antagonistic orders of truth in the uni- 
 verse, one scientific and the other religious ; but 
 that, on the contrary, religious truth will not and 
 cannot be antagonized by true science. It is only 
 by a false and vicious interpretation of the facts of 
 nature that religious truth is antagonized. True 
 science is, therefore, the handmaid of true religion ; 
 and the reconciliation of religion and science only 
 awaits a true interpretation of the phenomena of 
 nature.
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 363 
 
 There is, however, another sublime intuition that 
 remains to be considered. It was by an older 
 prophet than Jesus; but it is of equal interest and 
 importance with that which we have been consider- 
 ing. It is, indeed, a corollary of the fact of divine 
 Fatherhood, and, under the law of heredity, it must 
 be equally true and verifiable. I refer to the decla- 
 ration of the prophet of old that "man was made in 
 the image of God." 
 
 I am quite well aware of the anthropomorphic 
 interpretation of that declaration that has been 
 given to it by the enemies of the Christian religion. 
 I am also aware that atheism has been wont to 
 contribute to the gayety of its cult by picturing to 
 the imagination a man of colossal proportions a 
 physical and intellectual monster as the true 
 interpretation of the prophet's conception of God. 
 Of course, as all but atheists are aware, the words 
 were spoken, not of physical man, but of mental 
 attributes. But even this higher conception did not 
 entirely remove it from the charge of gross anthro- 
 pomorphism so long as the crude ideas of the old 
 psychology were imported into it and made a part of 
 the conception. The old psychology bore it in upon 
 us, with perpetual insistence, that the highest intel- 
 lectual power with which man is invested is that of 
 inductive reasoning. The conception of God was, 
 therefore, necessarily limited by the prevailing 
 ideas of the powers of man. The highest possible 
 conception of God, therefore, under the old psycho- 
 logical ideas, was that of a being endowed with 
 infinite reasoning powers. Inductive reasoning, as 
 I have often remarked, is merely a method of in-
 
 364 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 quiry ; and a very slow and laborious method it is. 
 It is a systematic effort to find out something of 
 which we are ignorant. Extending that faculty to 
 infinity does not change its character nor divest it 
 of its limitations. A God of infinite reason, there- 
 fore, would still be a searcher after facts and a 
 guesser at conclusions. It is obvious that a concep- 
 tion of Deity based upon man's inductive powers is 
 of a being of limited intelligence, and hence open 
 to the charge of anthropomorphism. 
 ; , I repeat, therefore, what I have so strongly in- 
 sisted upon in the earlier chapter, of this book, that 
 ( the brain is a physical organ a product of organic 
 evolution especially adapted to a physical environ- 
 ment and to no other; and that its powers of induc- 
 tion are no more a part of man's divine heritage 
 than are his powers of deglutition. The divine part 
 of man is his subjective mind the mind of his 
 immortal soul which exists independently of the 
 body or any of its physical organs ; which is literally 
 a spark of the divine intelligence, literally a part 
 of the mind of God. 
 
 It is to this part of man that I now wish to invite 
 the attention of my readers, asking them to bear in 
 mind the declaration of the prophet that man was 
 made in the image of God; and of Jesus, that we 
 are the sons of God. I do so for a twofold purpose, 
 namely, 
 
 First, to emphasize what has already been proven 
 by the facts of organic evolution relating to the 
 divine origin of life; and 
 
 Secondly, to draw the legitimate deductions as co 
 the character, attributes, and powers of God.
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 365 
 
 That is to say, having abundantly proved from the 
 facts of organic evolution that man is the offspring 
 of God, it is now logically legitimate to analyze the 
 faculties of the offspring for the purpose of ascer- 
 taining something of the attributes and powers of 
 the ancestor. Under the law of heredity this is not 
 only a legitimate logical process, but it is one that 
 insures approximately correct results. Not that it 
 is given to finite minds to comprehend the Infinite 
 Intelligence or to fathom its mysteries; but that he 
 is not "utterly unknowable" by his children. 
 
 Before proceeding to an analysis of the faculties 
 of the subjective mind, I wish to say a word in regard 
 to its so-called limitations resulting from the law of 
 suggestion. I have heretofore pointed out the fact 
 that the law of suggestion is a necessary limitation 
 of the independence of the soul during its sojourn 
 in a physical environment, for the reason that, dur- 
 ing the transitional period from savagery to civiliza- 
 tion, the emotions require the regulating influence 
 of reason. That influence, of course, could only be 
 acquired and maintained by the reasoning mind by 
 virtue of such a limitation of power as the law of 
 suggestion imposes upon the subjective mind. This 
 limitation continues, as I have shown, until con- 
 science becomes an instinctive emotion of the soul ; 
 after which the subjective mind assumes a normal 
 ascendancy. I have drawn the conclusion, from all 
 the facts in the case, that the subjective mind was 
 created with a special adaptation to a higher life 
 an environment of truth where no false sugges- 
 tions can reach it. I have also shown that the so- 
 called law of suggestion is but another way of stat-
 
 366 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAM 
 
 ing the fact that the subjective mind is not endowed 
 with the power or faculty of inductive reasoning, and 
 that that apparent limitation is due to the fact that, 
 in the higher life to which it is destined, the faculty 
 of intuition is the dominant intellectual faculty. 
 The latter faculty enables its possessor to acquire a. 
 knowledge of the laws of its being and its environ- 
 mental conditions by immediate, intuitive percep- 
 tion ; and this, of course, would render the inductive 
 faculty useless and superfluous, in fact, impossible. 
 
 I repeat these observations here merely for the 
 purpose of inviting renewed attention to the fact 
 that an omniscient intelligence is necessarily inde- 
 pendent of the use of inductive reasoning, the latter 
 being merely a method of inquiry by a limited, finite 
 intelligence. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the very limitations of 
 the powers of the subjective mind proclaim its 
 divine origin and give promise of its ultimate 
 destiny. They constitute, in fact, indubitable evi- 
 dence that, in the highest sense of the expression, 
 "man was made in the image of God." 
 
 Now, let us examine systematically the faculties 
 of the subjective mind of man, with a view to finding 
 what further evidence they afford of his divine origin 
 and likeness, but more especially with a view to 
 finding what conceptions of the attributes and powers 
 of God may arise from a knowledge of those of his 
 children. 
 
 To facilitate such an examination, I append below 
 a table exhibiting in systematic order all of the 
 purely subjective faculties. The right-hand column 
 shows the faculties as they actually exist in man.
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 
 
 367 
 
 The left-hand column shows what they would be by 
 infinite extension without a change in their essen- 
 tial characteristics. In other words, the right-hand 
 column exhibits man's subjective faculties as they 
 exist; and the left-hand column shows the concep- 
 tion of Deity which is necessarily derivable from 
 a knowledge of their existence and their divine 
 origin : 
 
 God. 
 
 Man. 
 
 Omniscience 
 
 Instinct or Intuition. 
 Deductive Powers (potentially Perfect). 
 Memory (potentially Perfect). 
 
 Omnipotence 
 
 Telekinetic Energy. 
 
 Omnipresence 
 
 Telepathy. 
 
 Infinite Love 
 
 Natural Emotions. 
 
 A few words will further explain and justify this 
 table and its implications. 
 
 At the head of the list, as beseems its godlike 
 potency, is intuition, the potentialities of which can 
 be adequately described only by the employment of 
 terms that express the highest attribute of omni- 
 science, the power of apprehending essential truth 
 antecedent to and independent of reason, experience, 
 or instruction. It was by the exercise of this faculty 
 that the prophet of old was enabled to grasp that 
 most fundamental of all psychological truths, that
 
 368 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 "man was made in the image of God." Men have 
 called it "inspiration;" and certain it is that it is 
 the basis of all that we know of inspiration. It is 
 the instantaneous perception of fundamental and 
 necessary truth. Its__first manifestation on earth 
 was in_the jnoneron, and science named it "in- 
 stinct." In all the lower animals it is thus desig- 
 nated. In man it is named "intuition." By infinite 
 extension it becomes omniscience. It is the one 
 faculty possessed by the human soul that proclaims 
 the divine pedigree of man in terms that cannot be 
 misunderstood. Without it animal life would have 
 perished on the threshold of the organic world. 
 Abolish it from the universe, and the animal world 
 would perish in a generation, and God would cease 
 to be omniscient. It is the intelligence behind 
 creative energy, and it is the preserver of sentient 
 life everywhere. 
 
 The next faculty on the list is that of deductive 
 reasoning. It is the inseparable concomitant of 
 intuition. The latter grasps the law by instanta- 
 neous perception, and the former, with the same 
 inconceivable rapidity of mentation, deduces all 
 legitimate conclusions and consequences, near and 
 remote. Indeed, the processes of mentation in the 
 subjective mind are so inconceivably rapid that it is 
 impossible, in cases of genuine intuition, to know 
 where the work of intuition ends and the process of 
 deduction begins. 
 
 Again, we are reminded of the attributes of omnis- 
 cience, and we are enabled to form a finite concep- 
 tion of the means by which God knows the past, 
 present, and future. He knows the past by means of
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 369 
 
 a memory that is absolute; the present by imme- 
 diate cognition; and the future by means of an in- 
 finite knowledge of laws and causes, proximate and 
 ultimate, and infinite powers of inerrant deduction. 
 
 The next on the list is the potentially perfect 
 memory of the subjective mind. Little need be 
 said on this subject beyond the fact that it is an 
 inherent faculty in the subjective mind of man, and 
 that it is necessarily an attribute of omniscience. 
 
 Here, then, we have the three intellectual facul- 
 ties of the subjective mind of man, namely, intui- 
 tion, deduction, and memory, all potentially perfect. 
 That is to say, these faculties exist in the subjective 
 mind of man, and are often phenomenally manifested 
 in such a way as to reveal their wonderful potentiali- 
 ties, as in men of genius, in mathematical and musi- 
 cal prodigies, and in feats- of memory far beyond the 
 capability of the objective mind. Thus, the intui- 
 tive perception of the laws of quantity or of numbers 
 is shown in such prodigies as Zerah Colburn, 
 Jedediah Buxtone, and others; and deduction enables 
 them to give, instantaneously, the exact answer in 
 figures to the most intricate mathematical problems. 
 Perfect memory is revealed in such prodigious feats 
 as that related by Coleridge of the ignorant servant- 
 girl who repeated whole pages of Latin and Greek 
 many years after having heard her master read those 
 passages aloud in a room adjoining the one in which 
 she was engaged in household work. She could not 
 even read her own language, and her objective mind 
 took no note of what she heard ; and yet every word 
 was indelibly impressed upon the mind of the soul, 
 only to reappear, years after, when the functions of 
 
 24
 
 370 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 the brain were inhibited by disease and imminent 
 dissolution. 1 
 
 Thus is revealed, often under pathological con- 
 ditions, it is true, the latent intellectual capacities 
 of the subjective mind, the mind energy of the 
 human soul. It goes without saying that what is 
 thus revealed in one mind must exist potentially in 
 all other human minds, and that they only await 
 proper conditions for their manifestation. The 
 essential condition being the inhibition of the func- 
 tions of the objective mind, it follows that the most 
 perfect conditions under which those powers can 
 reach their full fruition must be the complete 
 removal of the clogs of our earthly investiture. 
 
 This, however, is a digression. Returning to the 
 subject under immediate consideration, it must be 
 evident that the subjective mind of man is endowed 
 with a complete intellectual equipment with divine 
 potentialities; and that the faculties thus shown to 
 exist in each one of us are embryotic omniscience. 
 That is to say, the same faculties, simply by infinite 
 enlargement and extension of their capacity, with- 
 out changing their essential nature, would become 
 omniscience. 
 
 The next faculty or power of the human soul to 
 be considered is what I have designated as tele- 
 kinetic energy. It is simply the power to move 
 ponderable bodies without physical contact or me- 
 chanical appliances. I am aware that I shall run 
 counter to the prejudices of some, and transcend the 
 sphere of observation of many, when I say that this 
 
 1 For further particulars of these cases, see " The Law of Psychic 
 Phenomena" and authorities therein cited.
 
 , IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 371 
 
 is the power exercised by so-called " spirit mediums " 
 when they cause tables or other ponderable bodies 
 to be levitated. I can only say to the skeptical that 
 I know the power to exist, having for more than 
 thirty years of my life pursued the investigation of 
 so-called spiritistic phenomena, under the strictest 
 test conditions, with two clearly defined objects in 
 view, namely, first, to ascertain whether the alleged 
 physical phenomena were really produced by super- 
 normal means ; and, secondly, for the purpose of 
 trying to find the underlying principle which would 
 correlate all psychic phenomena. Whether I have 
 been successful in the latter quest, the readers of 
 my published works must judge for themselves. 
 But as to the first, I can only'assure my readers that 
 I have applied every possible scientific test to nearly 
 every form of physical phenomena, especially to 
 that of the levitation of ponderable bodies without 
 physical contact or mechanical aids; and that as the 
 result of my researches I am prepared to asseverate 
 that the power exists in the subjective mind of man 
 to cause inanimate matter to obey his will rather 
 than the law of gravitation. The only wonder to my 
 mind is that any one who cares to know the truth 
 should deny the fact, since it is so easily ascertained 
 to be true by any one who will consent to conduct a 
 candid, unprejudiced investigation. The attitude 
 of denial of the physical phenomena of spiritism is 
 especially inexplicable, since not one of them pos- 
 sesses, in itself, any evidential value whatever for or 
 against the doctrine that spirits of the dead com- 
 municate with the living. This is a logical truism 
 that the world has been very slow to learn.
 
 372 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 Believers in the verity of the New Testament rec- 
 ords certainly have no right or occasion to doubt 
 the existence of the power of levitation, since Jesus 
 walked upon the water. If it is replied that he was 
 exceptionally endowed, it must not be forgotten that 
 Peter did the same thing. And the words of reproof 
 addressed by the Master to Peter when he began to 
 sink clearly indicated the source of the power. " O 
 thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" 
 I submit that a volume of scientific dissertation could 
 not have more clearly stated the fact that the power 
 arose from the mental attitude of the individual, and 
 not from any extraneous source, human or divine. 
 
 I have been thus insistent upon the recognition of 
 this power in man, for the reason that, while it pos- 
 sesses no evidential value whatever in favor of the 
 spiritistic hypothesis, it does constitute an impor- 
 tant link in the chain of evidence going to prove 
 the divine origin of man and his likeness to his Om- 
 nipotent Father. A word will make my meaning 
 clear: 
 
 This power, whether it emanates from spirits of 
 the dead or spirits of the living, is clearly a spiritual 
 or mental force or energy. It is an energy that 
 moves and controls matter independently of physi- 
 cal organism; for it endows inert ponderable sub- 
 stances with apparent intelligence. That is to say, 
 it not only causes ponderable bodies to move, but to 
 answer questions intelligently by prescribed move- 
 ments. It ejnanates, therefore, from _spme_ intelli- 
 gence jmdJsj^ojTtmlled by volition. That intelligence 
 is the subjective mind of man. Embodied or dis- 
 embodied, it is the mind of a humaii soul.
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 373 
 
 It is obvious that this power or energy corresponds 
 to that infinite spiritual energy that assembled matter 
 and created the material universe. In other words, 
 that spiritual power, resident in the subjective mind 
 of man, which is known to science as " telekinetic 
 energy," enlarged and extended to infinity, without 
 changing its essential nature, becomes omnipotence. 
 
 The next faculty on the list is that of telepathy, 
 the power possessed by the subjective minds of men 
 to communicate intelligence from one to another 
 independently of the ordinary sensory channels of 
 transmission. 
 
 Science has demonstrated the existence of this 
 faculty in certain exceptionally developed persons 
 known to scientists as " psychics." A psychic is a 
 person who has developed the power to elevate the 
 operations of his subjective mind above the threshold 
 of normal consciousness. They are called by as 
 many different names as there are theories of causa- 
 tion; "clairvoyants" and "spirit mediums" being 
 among the most common designations. It is often 
 developed spontaneously, without any known cause ; 
 and hypnotism is a powerful agency through which 
 it may be experimentally demonstrated to exist. It 
 was largely by this agency that the Society for Psy- 
 chical Research conducted its investigations, although 
 spontaneous cases are much in evidence in their re- 
 ports. So-called " mediumship " is, however, the 
 most prolific source of telepathic phenomena, al- 
 though it is not recognized as such by the mediums 
 themselves. A good " medium " is, nevertheless, 
 simply a good telepathist; and it is to this power, 
 exercised unconsciously and dominated by the law
 
 374 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 of suggestion, that is due all that is mysterious in 
 the so-called " communications from the other world." 
 At least no alleged communication has ever yet been 
 brought to light that cannot be thus accounted for. 
 The same is true of all other methods of divination 
 where the past, present, or future of an individual is 
 accurately stated, without previous knowledge. 
 
 It will thus be seen that telepathy is a very im- 
 portant faculty of the human mind ; for it explains 
 more of that which is uncanny and mysterious in 
 psychic phenomena than all other things combined. 
 This 1 _hojy.e_veiyis the limit of its practicalnsefu 1 n e s s 
 jn_this life ; fpi..lhe_.jgason that, owing to the^on- 
 sjajitlj^_jnodijj^mg_jnfluence of_the_la_w__o_f_ suggestion, 
 it can never be relied upon as a practic_al_means of 
 co m m u n icatiqn . 
 
 It is in its implications that its importance is tran- 
 scendent. The most important may be enumerated 
 as follows : 
 
 First, it gives us the logical right to believe that, 
 since it performs no normal function in this life, it 
 must be destined to a normal use in the future life. 
 This implication is reinforced by the fact (a) that it 
 is exactly adapted to the uses of disembodied souls; 
 (b) that it is not adapted to incarnate souls, being 
 only manifested under abnormal conditions; and (c) 
 that a mental faculty without a normal function to 
 per for m_j[^^A<?VL is inconceivable . * 
 
 Secondly, the fact that this or any other faculty is 
 possessed by any one or more persons is demon- 
 strative that all other persons possess the same fac- 
 
 1 For a full discussion of this subject, see " A Scientific Demon- 
 stration of the Future Life."
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 375 
 
 ulty to a greater or less degree. It is at least latent 
 in every human being. 
 
 Thirdly, it follows that it existed potentially in 
 all the ancestry of man, near and remote. 
 
 We must therefore conclude that, since man traces 
 his ancestry back to the divine mind, and since 
 man was made in the image of God, the faculty which 
 we are considering must exist, potentially at least, in 
 the divine mind. 
 
 The stupendous consequences which this con- 
 elusion involves cannot be adequately considered in 
 this connection. It is obvious, however, that here is 
 the means by which man may reach the mind of 
 God through prayer. Here is the means by which 
 God may reach the souls of men who choose to open 
 the line of communication by placing themselves in 
 the proper mental attitude. Here .is the agency of 
 divine inspiration. 
 
 Does God answer the prayers of his children? 
 Does God inspire men with a knowledge of his laws 
 and a desire to do his will? These are great ques- 
 tions, which, for the present, each one must answer 
 for himself, guided by the light of his own experi- 
 ence. It is outside the province of this volume to 
 discuss them. I am simply trying to conduct an 
 inductive inquiry with a view of ascertaining some- 
 thing of the general laws pertaining to the relation- 
 ship which man sustains to his Maker. In this imme- 
 diate connection I have shown that a law exists 
 through which the divine consciousness may be 
 reached ; and it follows that the converse may also 
 be true. In other words, potentially man is able to 
 commune with God, and God with man, without 
 violating or transcending natural law.
 
 376 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 In the mean time there is another fact connected 
 with the faculty of telepathy which is of more imme- 
 diate importance than any we have considered ; for 
 in a sense it includes all the others. I refer to the 
 fact that jjstance interposes no obstacle^ _tp_ the exer- 
 cise of telepa^hic_gower. That is to say, it is appar- 
 ently just as easy to communicate telepathically with 
 a friend at the antipodes as with one in an adjoining 
 room. The records of the London Society for Psy- 
 chical Research show that some of the most remark- 
 able cases of telepathic communion have been 
 between persons thus widely separated. For the 
 purposes of telepathic communion, therefore, space 
 does not enter as an adverse factor. To all intents 
 and purposes the agent is present with the percip- 
 ient, and vice versa. 
 
 It is obvious that when this faculty or power or 
 energy is enlarged and extended to infinity, it be- 
 comes the divine attribute of omnipresence. 
 
 We now approach the question that is of more 
 vital importance to mankind than anything else per- 
 taining to the relationship existent between God and 
 his children. Thus far we have seen that the fac- 
 ulties of the subjective mind of man, enlarged to 
 infinity, give us a conception of an omniscient, omni- 
 potent, omnipresent deity. But those attributes alone 
 do not satisfy the cravings of the human heart, nor 
 are they commensurate with the unperverted intuitions 
 of the human soul. Neither is a deity who has only 
 those attributes the God of Christian faith ; for that 
 faith is founded upon the inerrant intuitions of the 
 Man of Nazareth, and he proclaimed a God of infinite 
 love, mercy, and benevolence. If therefore his per-
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 377 
 
 ceptions of divine truth were inerrant, and if the 
 prophet of old failed not in his apprehension of ulti- 
 mate verity when he declared that man was made in 
 the image of God, we may confidently expect to find 
 the soul of man to be correspondingly endowed. 
 Accordingly we find that the natural emotions are 
 located in the subjective mind. 
 
 Little further need be said on this branch of the 
 subject beyond reminding the reader of what I 
 pointed out in the earlier chapters of this book. It 
 will be recalled that I showed that the so-called 
 " animal passions," in their ultimate development, 
 regulation, and purification, are all essentially altru- 
 istic. Beginning with the primordial instinct of 
 reproduction, which in its ultimate analysis is the 
 parental instinct, and tracing the history of the emo- 
 tions up to their final development in the higher 
 civilization, we find a constant tendency toward the 
 higher altruism. Classifying the emotions into the 
 "self-regarding" and the "other-regarding," we 
 found that they all belong to the latter class except 
 the one instinct of self-preservation; and that, as 
 nations and peoples progress toward the higher 
 civilization, the altruistic instincts and emotions 
 assume the ascendancy. It necessarily follows that, 
 if the analysis is correct, the ultimate goal of human 
 progress is universal altruism. 
 
 That it is correct is abundantly evidenced by the 
 history of human progressional development since 
 man emerged from primitive savagery. Moreover, 
 the present analysis shows that it is necessarily true, 
 since man was made in the image of God. 
 
 It will now be seen that the chain of evidence to
 
 378 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 
 
 prove our thesis is complete ; for it is obvious that 
 an extension of the natural emotions of man to in- 
 finity could amount to neither more nor less than 
 infinite and universal love. 
 
 ^ To sum up in a few words, we find in the subjec- 
 tive faculties of man, without a change in their 
 
 ( essential nature, the embryotic representatives of all 
 that the finite mind can conceive of the essential 
 attributes of God, the God of Christian faith. 
 
 \ Thus: 
 
 1. In the intellectual faculties (intuition, deduc- 
 tion, and memory), potential omniscience. 
 
 2. In its dynamic energy (telekinesis), potential 
 omnipotence. 
 
 3. In the power of mental communion (telepa- 
 thy), potential omnipresence. 
 
 4. In the natural emotions, potential universal 
 altruism, infinite love. 
 
 I submit that there can be no higher conception 
 of divine knowledge nay, that there can exist no 
 higher wisdom, than that which is indicated in the 
 word " omniscience ; " that there can exist no greater 
 power than is described in the word " omnipotence ; " 
 that there can be no broader conception of the all- 
 pervasiveness of that wisdom and that power than is 
 implied in the word " omnipresence; " and, finally, 
 that the human mind can conceive of no quality or 
 attribute of the divine personality of greater promise 
 and potency than that implied in the words " infinite 
 and universal love." 
 
 Moreover, I submit that this is a conception of 
 immanence without pantheism and personality with- 
 out anthropomorphism. It does not presume either
 
 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 379 
 
 to " limit" or " measure " the powers and attributes 
 of God by setting up those of man as a standard of 
 measurement. On the contrary, it simply shows > 
 that an analysis of the known powers of the human . 
 soul proves that the powers of God are illimitable, 
 and hence immeasurable by finite minds. In other 
 words, it is not that we can measure the powers of \ 
 the divine mind or set up a standard of its limita- 
 tions, but that we may know something of its 
 essential qualities by an analysis of its emanations ; 
 just as we may, by spectrum analysis, know some- 
 thing of the qualities of light without presuming to I 
 reveal the extent or potency of solar influence. 
 
 This is all that man can know of God by a direct | 
 analysis of his own powers. But it is something. 
 It is, indeed, much; for it is all that man needs to | 
 know concerning the character and attributes of the 
 Great First Cause. Its value lies not more in its 
 revelation of God to man than in its revelation of 
 man to himself. It is not that it reveals human 
 attributes in God, but that it discloses divine attri- 
 butes in man, defines his place in nature, and reveals 
 the character of his obligations to the Author of his 
 being. 
 
 THE END.
 
 A 000 064 504 4