46 ADAMITES AND PREADAMITES.
not the identical succession revealed by paleontology also a con-
tinuity? If the analogy does not convince, the aptitude to
variation predisposes to conviction; and conviction becomes almost irresistible, when we reflect that a profound similarity—indeed, a physiological identity—obtains between the mode of the continuity in embryonic and genealogical successions. I can do scarcely more than enunciate conclusions; and I fear the reader will wonder, at the end, what is the evidence on which they rest.
Now, we may admit the force of the evidence, and still, with Wallace, hesitate to admit that the body and soul of man fall under the law of evolution ; or, with Mivart, admit the principle with reference to the human body, and deny it with reference to the human soul. I. A great gap exists between man and all other animals. Structurally, his brain and cranium as much surpass an ape's as an ape's surpass an eel's. Psychically, man is equally differentiated from the highest brute. 2. No connecting links between man and the brutes are known. In the living world the fact is patent. In the extinct world we should expect to discover forms immediately below man, but they are not forthcoming. We find neither connecting links nor remains certifying to such antiquity as man must possess, if a derived form. On the whole, the question in reference to man is quite open. We are very far from the possession of evidence that his organism has been evolved; still farther from the proof that his soul is derived from the psychic nature of a brute.
I express myself simply as a scientist. As such, I warn the reader not to be disturbed by any conclusions of science either achieved or impending. It is absolutely immaterial whether God created man by a fiat instantly, or by a fiat derivatively. Whether man has been evolved or not, he is the work of a Creator; and every moment's continuance of his being is a manifestation of power so far superior to the prerogatives of matter as to constitute an ever-repeated creation. There has been a great deal of dogmatism in science, and it is as much to be deprecated as dogmatism in religion. Science is progressive, and it is not the sign of a well ballasted intelligence to be moved with apprehension over any fresh utterance of science. Every theory must be subjected to appropriate tests. If it stands, it becomes a new