130 



KNO^VLEDGE ♦ 



[Feb 1, 1886. 



merely descriptive zoologist can have no manner of 

 donbt. 



On a still more limited field than that with which 

 Prof. Schmidt here deals, Prof. ISIivart indicated what 

 he maintained to be a difTicultj in regard to the kinship 

 of men and apes. He pointed out that while man is 

 nearer to the Gorilla in some respects than to any other 

 of the anthropoid apes, he is in other respects nearer the 

 Chimpanzee, in others to the Orang, in others to the 

 Gibbon, while in some respects he is nearer to lower 

 orders of Simians or even to the Lemurs. If Darwinism 

 predicated descent along lines which can be traced even 

 now, the objection would have had some force. But the 

 theory of evolution as advanced by Darwin involved no 

 such fallacy, and in reality Mivart's objection had no 

 more weight than would an objection have against the 

 theory of the kinship of the present races of man which 

 should show that in some respects the Caucasian is nearer 

 to the Mongol than to the Ethiopian type, but that in 

 other respects the order of resemblance is reversed. In 

 fact, it might with equal reason be urged that a man is 

 not a blood relation of the members of a family really his 

 third or second cousins, because in some features he is 

 much more like some members of that family than the 

 rest, but in other features he more closely resembles other 

 members of the family. 



Professor Schmidt by indicating the features of resem- 

 blance and difference found among various families of 

 mammals — as among the two-hoofed animals (the Pigs, 

 Hippopotamus, Ruminants, Camels, Deer, Antelope.'^, Oxen, 

 and so forth), the one-hoofed animals (Tapirs, Rhinoceros, 

 Horse, <tc.), the Elephants, Sirenia (Sea-cows), Whales, 

 Flesh-eaters, Seals, Insect-eaters, and Anthropoids, brings 

 out very clearly the impossibility of all attempts at 

 thwart co-ordination. Clearly that is to say when the 

 evidence is understood, and duly weighed. We cannot 

 say much for the clearness of his style, while occasionally 

 the defects of the English translation go far to render his 

 meaning even more obscure than a certain iindue reliance 

 on the analytical powers of his readers has made the 

 original. Of verbal faults, bad English, and so forth, we 

 need say little perhaps : since if, for example, he is made 

 to say at p. 87 that " the absence of teeth in the jaws of 

 the monotrema is distinct from the ancestors of toothed 

 mammals," every reader knows what he means. It is 

 different, however, with such a passage as the follow- 

 ing :— 



" When comparing the genuine Hoofed Animals with 

 their ancestors, it was seen that the loss of one or two 

 toes took place as early as in the first Tertiary division. 

 It was only single genera that still showed the old five- 

 toed extremity, an inheritance from Pre-Tertiary times. 

 However all the living Sirenia possess a five-fingered 

 hand. When therefore it is said that the molars of 

 Prorastomus [an old tertiary group of Sirenia] are 

 genuine ridged teeth, these do not point to the true 

 Lophiodonta and tapirs, with their already reduced hand, 

 but to earlier ancestors on both sides. Thus things no 

 longer existing point to that very distant past, which 

 extends back beyond our actual observation. Even in 

 the case of Halitherium all that is left of the hind limb 

 is the thigh bone. This bone, however, is still attached 

 to the pelvis, which is tolerably reduced, and has a 

 socket. The earliest Sirenians, therefore, had a less 

 striking form of skull, but nevertheless, in their whole 

 appearance were already like the present living species. 

 From this it follows that the foui'-footed mammals 

 changed their abode for the sea, and lost their hind limbs, 

 before the Tertiary period." 



All this is very clear to the student of zoology who has 

 already clear ideas as to the significance of the various 

 forms of evidence ; but we fear that it must be rather 

 hard reading for the general reader, to whom the sequiturs 

 appear by no means so obvious as Professor Schmidt 

 seems to think them. 



A PosiTivisT View of the Seemok on the Mount. — 

 " The Gospel (I say it in no contemptuous sense) 

 is the religion to-day- of women; for women, at 

 least for the jsresent, are so much less called to 

 piiblic duties than are men. But does the ' Sermon 

 on the Mount ' make good citizens to-day ? Did it 

 ever make them ? The ' Sermon ' of Jesus is full of 

 refined and jjurifying sentiments ; there are counsels 

 too often forgotten, as where it is said — ' Whosoever 

 shall say to his brother Raca, or thou fool, shall 

 be in danger ' ; and — ' Let your communication be yea, 

 yea, nay, nay : for whatsoever is more than these, cometh 

 of evil.' That, no doubt, is still useful counsel ; but is 

 it the priests of the Gospel whose communication in 

 political strife is ever — yea, yea ! and never Raca, or 

 ' thou fool ' ? And when we go to the other precepts of 

 the ' sermon ' — ' Resi.st not evil ! ' ' Resist not evil ! ' 

 'Turn to the smiter the other cheek r.lso ! ' 'Give to 

 him that asketh thee.' ' Take no thought for your life.' 

 ' Take no thought for the morrow ; for the morrow shall 

 take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto 

 the day is the evil thereof.' What teaching is this ? 

 Prudence, energy, foresight, jn-actical wisdom, severe 

 justice, worldly sagacity, all the stern virtues of the 

 manly citizen, actually denounced as sin ! I do not 

 doubt that there are profound elements of personal 

 purification in this supernatural tr.vnce — so there are in 

 the ineffable ecstasies of a Buddhist mystic, or a Mu.ssul- 

 man dervish — but how utterly incompatible with politics 

 or any useful conduct in the social world ! There may 

 be practical and sensible Christians, and the Gospel may 

 not altogether exclude courage and energy in politics ; 

 but it is in spite of the creed, not by the aid of it, by 

 strange perversions and adaptations of its literal sense. 

 The f.ctive devoted citizen not only gets no guidance 

 whotever from the ' Sermon on the Mount,' but almost 

 every public act of his life is a violation of its precepts, 

 to be justified only by the argument that its pre- 

 cepts are an impossible form of mystical extravagance. 

 It must always be so where religion rests on any 

 theological basis whatever. Theology, and supra-mun- 

 dane sanctions, ecstatic bliss, eternal torments, absolute 

 transcendental objects (<f worshiii, of themselves exclude 

 all healthy and rational jiolitics. They act with potent, 

 though spasmodic, effect on the individual soul, the sense 

 of sin, the voice of conscience, the desire of purity, and 

 thirst after righteousne.ss. But bring them to public life, 

 and the charm is snapped. The care for our souls, the 

 hope of glory in Heaven, the preposterous hyperboles of 

 all the gospels and the priests, have no common ground 

 with prudent citizenship. Either they lead us off from 

 any interest in these worldly things ; or, if they bring ns 

 to worldly things at all, it is to present them in theolo- 

 gical, clerical, or ecclesiastical lights. What can the 

 welfare of England, or the .sympathy of classes, or the 

 reform of taxation, matter to men who teach that in a 

 brief span we shall all be with the Angels or the Devils, 

 forever and forever; to whom the Saviour of mankind 

 has committed the task of cursing those who take a 

 different opinion fi-oni theirs."— Me. Feeperic Hareison 

 on the Beligion of Humanity. 



