great, underlying his own essay. The geologist has not yet a single certain fossil or relic of Miocene man, and very few, comparatively, from the Pliocene. Yet the essayist assumes the existence of the human family through these untold ages, and on these assumed premises rests one-half of his theory. There is not an inch of solid ground beneath his corner stone. He has actually reared a great superstructure on a foundation less and worse than that on which his criticized school of biologists have attempted to build their theory of the descent of man. Surely logic that is unsound in biology cannot be sound in theology, nor is it strengthened by any amount of confident assertion.

Another, and to the careful archæologist an astounding statement, is (p. 402), that "the disclosure of the Arctic Eden solves all further difficulties in the Hebrew conception of the religious development of mankind. It concedes to the devotee of prehistoric archæology all his claims as to the lowly beginnings of every historie civilization developed in our prediluvian seats of humanity. It welcomes every revelation which fossil bone, or chipped flint, or lacustrine pile, or sepulchral mound has ever made, finding in it all precious illustration of those times of ignorance' through which our expatriated race has made its passage." It constrains the scientific anthropologist to believe that the Eden of Genesis was at the pole. The Biblical picture of antediluvian man, with his extraordinary vigor and stature and longevity, with his extraordinary defiance of the authority of God, and with his extraordinary persistence in the indulgence of self centered passions and appetites and ambition" (in Eden?)" is credible in the highest degree."

The meaning of this passage taken with its context and some others, is, that since the Deluge (i. e. Ice Age) man has existed in a low, degraded state. Of this the archæologist entertains no doubt. All the relics he has found attest it. Grant it and all is harmonious, barring Genesis. But by implication, if not by assertion, our author claims an antecedent period of vast and unknown length from the Miocene to the

Ice Age during which man, at first in a higher condition, and of a power, stature and longevity exceeding his present, occupied the earth. Confusion is immediately introduced instead of the pre-existing harmony. The archæologist holds up his hands in dismay at the audacity of the assumption. The geologist is fairly staggered by its magnificence. Not a shred of scientific evidence is anywhere brought forward in its favor, and yet upon it rests the other half of our author's work. No reason exists for its existence, save the necessity of the theory, which collapses the moment it is denied.

On two portentous assumptions therefore first, that man existed, contrary to all the evidences of biology and geology, during Miocene time, and second, that man was then, contrary to all the evidence of archæology, in a higher condition than afterward, is built the whole superstructure of this essay. Surely a writer who publishes a great discovery based on the smallest possible allowance of fact, eked out with a prodigious amount of unproved assertion should be tolerant of even the extreme left of the anthropological party. His own house coutains so much glass that he can ill afford to throw

stones.

In conclusion, we must express our high opinion of the ingenuity of a theory to which, though, as he says, it is not quite original, the author may fairly lay claim in virtue of the labor he has spent and the command of material he has shown in its elaboration. But at the same time we are conscious of a feeling of regret that so great pains has been taken to find comfortable quarters for a being, who even if he existed was quite incapable of appreciating their excellencies.

Prof. E. W. Claypole.

ARTICLE III.

An Alleged Scientific Perdition'.

PART I.

66

THE historian Edward A. Freeman, avers in his lecture on Comparative Politics, that the establishment of the comparative method of study has been the greatest intellectual achievement of our time a method, the introduction of which marks the nineteenth century, like the fifteenth, as one of the great stages in the development of the mind of man."

Thus so soon as the human mind turned from mere specution about things to itemized examination and comparison of things, it was made certain that the world would have not less of speculation, but more definite data on which to erect its speculations. This is the ground of the superiority of modern over ancient speculation and philosphy. We know the things and ways of the universe better.

This advantage is beyond estimate in the particular that it gives in the place of a world which was a diverse, a world which is a universe. The modern mind has attained to facts and conceptions of unities which make the universe an army in orderly marching array, while the world of the ancients was an army in motion but disbanded. The conception of universal law is one of the most aggressive ideas that ever invaded the human mind. It is second perhaps, to only onethe idea of a universal Lawmaker.

That the church and theology should have been brought under the necessity of making room for this invader is an occasion for no more surprise than in the case of art, or politics, or literature, or commerce, all of which relatively to their particular rank and office in history are as much revolutionized and to be revolutionized by it as the church and theology.

We, therefore, look with admiration upon all, sincere endeavors to re-state, re-adjust, or wholly re-make theological or 1Address delivered before the Philomathian Society of the Canton Theological School, June 21st, 1886.

other dogmas and creeds under the stupendous and pregnant thought of universal law. Naturally with everyone who has held or still holds a cherished doctrine concerning the present or future order of human society and destiny, the question has sprung: "Can the old faith live with the new?

To find an answer to this question, it is not perhaps too much to say, constitutes at present the chief employment of the philosophers and theologians and statesmen of the age.

We ask the reader's attention and indulgence while we inquire as to the success or failure one particular doctrine is having in trying to make a living with the new faith of universal law and scientific methods,

The Boston Lectureship in recognizing after a timid fashion, in spite of apparent boldness, the claim of evolution upon our attention, declares that Martineau and Lotze are safe guides, that we may safely accept evolution so far as Lotze accepts it, no further.

Now, we need not stop to tell the reader who Martineau, the Universalist Unitarian is, but as Lotze is thus brought to our attention, and as the Boston Lectureship assures us that Lotze is safe, and, under the cover of his great name as both a scientist and a philosopher, said Lectureship seeks to employ the scientific method and universal law as set forth in evolution to re-affirm and to re-animate the doctrine of an endless perdition, it will be serviceable to introduce the reader to the thoughts of Lotze, whose death occurred some two years since.

Professor Geo. T. Ladd, of Yale, has placed American nonreaders of German under great obligations by translating and editing Lotze's "Outlines of Metaphysics," of "Philosophy of Religion," and of "Practical Philosophy," to be followed by his "Outlines of Psychology," of "Esthetics" and of "Logic."

In his Editor's Preface, Prof. Ladd says: "These 'Outlines' cover the entire ground of Lotze's mature teaching." He further says:

"The philosophy of Lotze is a remarkable combination of

elements from the school and from real life. The elements which come from the school are both directly philosophical, and also only indirectly so through the physical and natural sciences. In the same year of his life, at the age of twentyone, he gained both the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and that of Doctor of Medicine. Although his earliest published works were on Metaphysics (1841) and Logic (1843), the first to be much noticed were those upon the science which deals with the relations of physical and psychical phenomena: on the Physiology of Life (1852) and of the Soul (1852) The thorough-going attempt made by the latter works to apply the conception of mechanism to the mind led many to misunderstand Lotze, and even to class him among so called scientific materialists. The freest allowance is given to the scientific conception of mechanism in this series of philosophical "Outlines.' But the reader should never forget that in the view of Lotze, mechanism or the coherency of the phenomena according to fixed laws of action is only the means or way of behavior' which the highest Idea, the Idea of the Good, has chosen to realize itself. And the whole drift and aim of the philosophical system set forth in these little books, is away from materialism." (Ed's. Pref. " Outlines of Metph." p. x.)

We find thus on examination that Lotze holds unflinchingly to the mechanical theory both as applied to the phenomena of matter and mind and is as decided an evolutionist as Spencer. Some more recent utterances of Spencer, such as the Infinite and Eternal Energy from which all things proceed"the same Power that "in ourselves wells up under the form of consciousness" when placed along side of Lotze's furnish a good illustration of how extemes meet, or perhaps they prove rather that the two great philosophers have a common conception of the product of Infinite Energy and Infinite Reality, and only differ in their use of names and in some detail of method. Call Spencer's Infinite and Eternal Energy, Lotze's Sole, Supreme Reality, or the Highest Good, and there is no more difficulty in the Spencerian Evolution than in that of Lotze. They are presumed by the Boston Lectureship to be far apart irreconcilably apart as to how we come by our ideas of space, time, moral right or conscience - Spencer holding that these became mental dispositions through expe