« AnteriorContinuar »
universal tradition of all from one pair equally unheeded.. Kant -asserted that the difference of the negro from the rest of the world, arose from the gern in the original megro race.in However absurd Kant may be in his germs of men, we shall soon see that Strauss is absurder still in his germs of earth!) The mext point urged is, that the different races in varied and distant parts of earth preclude the possibility of a common origin. 1! bulunan iclib 14.4 sh - We think it may be shown without much difficulty, that atcient ship building and navigation were in a far more advanced state at an early period of the world, than either Strauss or any of his school appean to imagine. odIndependent of which question, Behring's Straits suggest no very formidable difficulties to the peopling of America, especially if the theory, which appears borne out by the fossil remains, of a change of climate be true, in which case the northern regions possessed sufficient heat to enable the tropical animals to subsist there. But let us look at our author's theory, which ought to be simple and clear, and unincumbered with any of these difficulties, otherwise we gain no advantage from its adoption. It is to our utter astonishment the Autochthonic.omrad meiegt 19011101 to not uitab ses b96te ad“ God has not created man as such a one, or quatenus infinitus est, sed quatenus per elementa nascentis telluris explicatur.' This is the opinion which lays at the basis of the old traditions of Autochthon, which was devised by the Greek and Roman philosophers, and was opposed by the Fathers of the Church with the greatest violence, but it became the unanimous doctrine of natural history and philosophy. Thus all organic beings are originally produced by the unorganie matter. As to our planet, there is no doubt that it has acquired its actual state only by degrees, that it was in the original (primitive) time uninhabitable by organic beings, and that all those (organic beings) originated by degrees, without having parents, consequently by an heterogeneous production. To judge after this and other facts, our planet possessed, in those times, an abundant productive power, which, though now limited in the extent of its expressions, continues to act to the conserving of the created, executing (mediating), the continuance of more important organic forms only by propagation. It was principally the liquid element, but not such as it is now, but mixed with the vital germs which it has now separated from itself, which under the influence of a milder temperature of the original time has put forth from itself gradually at first the germs of the lower organisms, then the bigher, and lastly, after a longer preparation ofi mixtures and divisions, also the germ of the human organism. The objection against this theory is easy. Why does not such production continue ? If nature, observed Reimarus, could effect it once, we should even now see formations here and there in the fat slime by the heat of the sun, half or entirely formed, shaped or unsbaped, known or unknown, ancient or modern. Lucretius, speaking about the different periods of the earth, has already observed that we cannot come to any conclusion about the youth of the departing from the sterility of its age, and the
actual natural history agrees with him. Schelling has observed, with still more sagacity, that the unorganic matter which now lies before us, and whose impotence of productive organism forms the objection, is no longer joined with the same, out of which we affirm human beings to bave come forth originally, for it is rather that part of the earth which cannot become animal or plant, or metamorphose itself to the point where it turned organic. Thus it is the residue of the organic metamorphoses. However, it is not even true that this production of organism does not occur. Reimarus saw well wbat a powerful support the theory has in the generatio æquivoca of some of the lowest animals, which became probable from the discoveries of Buffon, Needham, &c. Consequently he denied entirely the possibility of such a production of living beings, which argument is now no more feasible after so many experiments and observations, done with great care. But it is incontestable that it continues to form living beings, partly of unorganic and partly of quite heterogeneous organic matter, under certain circumstances, as the infusoria, the entozoa, in the animal body. However, they will not accept any conclusion from this small and low organism, upon the highest, the human. But worms twenty feet long are not small animals, nor is the structure of the intestinal worms in general, and the infusoria, so artless (simple), when the one is anatomized by Brewer, and the other by Ehrenberg. The first lay, partly eggs, partly produce living young ones, and though the first exemplars could only have formed themselves in each single aniinal by generatio æquivoca, precisely in the same manner we affirm did man. He appeared at first on earth through a heterogeneous production, upon which he now propagates himself by a sexual one. The immense difference which still remains between these animals and the higher organisms is by no means greater than the difference of the relation in which these insects have been produced formerly, from those in which now only the former come forth. The heterogeneous production is the disappearing after trembling (nachzittern) of a movement to the violent beginpings of which all organic life owes its commencement. But supposing man could have been produced in such a manner, how would he have been able to conserve himself, who without doubt did not appear as a full grown one? Shall we remove this objection by supposing, like Epicurus, milk to the earth ? or like Oken imagine the first men coming out of their germ case (Keimbälle) in wbich they developed themselves in the original sea, at first as two years old children, when they became capable to seek their food? Let us rather confess here, as we have done in the doctrine of the eternal creation, the insufficiency of our conception, but let us keep up more strictly the necessity of thinking with Lucretius
Nam neque de cælo cecidisse animalia possunt;' and that the origin of man can only be in the above-mentioned manner. If we thus suppose the origin of man, namely, as a natural process, the production of certain physical conditions, I do not see wby these conditions (a certain mixture of matters under certain relations of temperature, electricity, galvanisin, &c.) should only happen once, and in one point of the globe, or only have produced one human couple, I think
rather if such germs formed themselves once, they must, without doubt, to speak with Oken, have come forth in thousands. As a production of nature, man must have been produced under the type of nature, namely, in a multiplicity of instances, or in a number of germs, the least of which attain the aim of their creation, by which alone can be explained the prevention of destruction by accidents, and partly the population of the world by the different races."
Monboddo's ape did not reach this. His theory is far more reasonable because he gets up to Strauss by a series of developements; but Strauss spurns all this, and generates his grass-hopper, Autochthon, on the instant. Absurdity has, however, this advantage, that it teaches us to appreciate truth. Let us go down with the entire argument. First, the theory is, that this creation is not on God's part,“ quatenus infinitus, sed quatenus per elementa nascentis telluris explicatur.” How does this realize the absolute deed from the absolute, if it be mediate creativeness? Their own weapons pierce the neologists. What natural history or philosophy, saving that of Hegel and Strauss, favours heterogeneous production? Where is the tradition of early creation of this character? Where is the proof of any such vis vitalis as is here ascribed to the earth? In what crucible were all organisms revolving ere they attained muscular formation? Reimarus is unanswerable. If it was done, why should it never be repeated ? The argument of Lucretius on the sterility of earth now rests on nothing but his baseless assertion. Ovid, in all his metamorphoses, never represents man as distinct from man in production, although in the myth of Deucalon and Pyrrha the stones become men-but how? By human agency under a divine law. A very different case to the one before us; and further, the intention of Ovid to indicate man's earthly formation is perfectly apparent. But it is asserted, certainly somewhat hesitatingly, with all the misgiving of an indefensible position, that this production of organism does happen. The generatio æquivoca is appealed to, which is certainly very equivocal proof. There is nothing in this but a term—there is no spontaneous generation. The infusoria and entozoa are appealed to as proofs. Now these infinitesimals, infusoria, according to Spallanzani, fill the air with their germs or eggs, so that we swallow them, and imbibe them possibly at every inhalation. La Mark considered the infusoria as having no volition, as taking their food by absorption like plants, as being without any mouth or internal organ, in a word, as gelatinous masses, whose motions are determined not by their will, but by the action of the medium in which they move. Headless, eyeless, organless, nerveless, just the sort of insect required
to make out his own theory and that of Strauss. But the pious and deepl.y sagacious Ebrenberg, who devoted ten years of his life to their investigation, found these insects extending in their habitat to 50° of longitude and 14° of latitude, at Dongola, in Africa, the Altai mountains in Asia, on Mount Sinai, in the Oasis of Ammon, and at the bottom of Siberian mines, in spots entirely destitute of light.
These insects possess a more complicated coustruction than other animals, therefore they cannot be the first link. They dwell in the blood and urine, in the tartar of the teeth, in vinegar, paste, sand, &c. Their minuteness is such that some are not 1-2000th part of a line in breadth, and yet they have organs, a mouth, and several stomachs. The impression made upon the mind of Ehrenberg by this study, has been deeply conducive to the piety as well as learning of that philosopher. The type then of these is not simple enough for the earliest formation, neither do they generate apparently different from other aniinals. - "
The entozoa are next quoted, and it shows how singularly different things affect different men. s. These are quoted by one of our most enlightened philosophers, and the author of a Bridgewater Treatise, as fearful reininiscences of a fall. But it is of course presumed by Strauss, that as the habitat of these is man, that here he has his stronghold of spontaneous generation, since they are all generated in human inatter. But these animals are doubtless generated from our food, which, warmed by the heat of the intestines, produces, from almost imperceptible eggs, even the giant tape-worm. Why are not these found in other animals? Why do they lodge in man? Simply because they vary as the food varies. The other animals do not take man's aliment, do not inhale our various drinks; wine and porter are unknown to them, and consequently man has these peculiar organizations from his peculiar diet. These two points thus disposed of, we will heighten the argument for Strauss, by adducing the polypes. Now when a part of these animals is cut off, it instantly forms another, and as complete an animal as the one from which it has been severed. Will this serve the argument of Strauss, since it has a greater air of probability than any of his own? Not a'whit, though the best illustration of the argument, for it is a faculty with which God has endowed the polype. The illustrations fail, even supposing that we deigned to place the question of the noblest animal on a pari-passu process with the meanest. But the entozoa, according to Strauss, are both ovipaious' and viviparous. We doubt this latter fact; still we will lét 'it remain, for argument, 'undisputed.
The first exemplars, he says, could only have formed them- : selves in each living animal by generatio æquivoca; and precisely in the sanie manner, we affirm, did man appear upon the earth through a heterogeneous production, which is now continued by! a sexual. But here the generatio æquivoca is not established, and therefore man cannot be said to be generated by that of which the author can furnish no type. But where is the proof that the immense difference between the entozoa and man equals, which it must, to make this argument perfect, that between the ancient and modern relations of the earth. Why should such magical powers be attributed to the Nachsittern, as to throw out at once, without miraculous agency, the perfect species of men, Having thus indifferently generated the human race, we regret to say, that Strauss is as bad a nurse as parent. He has now to feed his child. Epicurus had suggested milk from the earth, a creation of cow trees or something similar we suppose, to support his spontaneous creation. (How wisely is all creation placed, not coeval with but anterior to man!). No that will not do, and Oken helps him out by a desperate plunge, supposing a two-year-old birth, (while about it, why did he not say twenty); and at this period the children are to sustain themselves and go on to manhood, Poor things! How much did they grow in the first year? How much in the second ? When did they begin to run? How much cold met in them? How much heat? How much moisture ? Did the elements beg of each other loans to generate certain parts? How was the earth? Shaking all over. Poor children! Strauss fairly gives up the battle here :-" Let us rather confess, as we have done in the doctrine of the Eternal Creation, the insufficiency of our couceptions." Yes, but this confession comes somewhat late in the day.. Before a man touches these solemn realities, he is bound to exhibit a scheme as perfect as that he seeks to displace; before he unsettles a hope, of futurity, he must give, as Hume was required to furnish to his aged mother, some equivalent for that which he removes, We must get a certainty of being right, and not be taken up to a stage of the journey, and then told that our guide is useless. An esprit fort must be fort throughout. He ought to bave no weakpess, who, like Spinoza and Strauss, can man his heart and say, that he not only iinaginės but understands the Eternity of the Godhead. .: The self-sufficiency of these men is apparent at every line. Having thus, we repeat, proved an extremely indifferent parent to man, a still worse nurse, let us look at his universal relations in both capacities. Man, then, is the product of these physical conditions, and Strauss does not see why these conditions (a certain mixture of matter under some relation of temperature, electricity, VOL. XXVII. NO, LIV.