1875.] Notices of Books. 361 
Number, a Link between Divine Intelligence and Human: an 
Argument. By C. GirpLestone, M.A. London: Long- 
mans and Co. 
Tue object of this little work is to show that ‘‘man is made in 
the likeness of his Maker, instead of being, as surmised by 
some, developed from the lower orders of creation.” We may 
remark, parenthetically, that the conditions here given as two 
alternatives are by no means mutually exclusive. Man may 
have reached the likeness of his Maker quite as easily by a 
process of evolution as by a direct, and, so to speak, mere me- 
chanical mode of creation. ‘It is to the bearing of Number on 
this question of man’s lineage, as pointing to an origin for the 
human race not below human nature, but above it, that the fol- 
lowing argument will chiefly direct attention ; pursuing through- 
out one definite chain of reasoning, which it is believed has not 
been elsewhere so distinctly set forth. And inasmuch as it rests 
mainly on grounds which underlie the foundations of modern 
Science, in most if not in all of its departments, it may perhaps 
have some little weight with those who follow after knowledge 
scientifically, out of a pure desire to discover and hold fast that 
which is true.” 
The Author’s argument runs thus:—In the universe there 
appear certain numerical relations, which man is able to appre- 
hend. Hence he may be assumed to bear a resemblance to the 
Creator of the universe. On the other hand, asserts the author, 
the lower animals are devoid of the faculty of number. Hence 
they differ from man not in degree, but in kind, and, as a conse- 
quence, man cannot have been evolved from any lower form. 
We have thus, we believe, fairly stated the Author’s train of 
reasoning, and have now to examine its validity. That there 
appear in the universe numerical relations, or at least uniformities, 
which man interprets and apprehends by number, no one will 
dispute. ‘That man has, though to a very varying degree, the 
power ‘‘ to calculate number and to apprehend its intimate rela- 
tions” is also evident. But who tells us “that no (like) traces 
of a faculty to apprehend relations of Number have been met 
with in bird or beast is a proposition which may be confidently 
maintained’? This the Author has no right to take for granted. 
To give an illustration :—We stand before an audience, and hold 
up two minerals. ‘‘ These,” we say, ‘“‘have a certain resem- 
blance, but they differ herein that the one contains arsenic 
whilst the other does not.” But if it turns out that we have not 
analysed the latter, but have merely assumed the absence of 
arsenic, we shall stand confounded. It is all very well for the 
Author to say “‘No one of these creatures, it may be safely 
averred, can discern the presence of number in things around it.” 
Until the mental manifestations of animals have been investi- 
gated far more closely and impartially than they have been, it is 
the extreme of rashness to make any such statement. 
