The  notion  that  man  was  somehow  develoj^ed  out  of  the
Simia  is  not  of  recent  origin.  Eighteen  centuries  ago  Pliny
wrote,  "Man  is  the  being  for  whose  sake  all  other  things
appear  to  have  been  produced  by  Nature ;"  yet  he  remarked,
also,  that  "  the  various  kinds  of  apes  offer  an  almost  perfect
resemblance  to  man  in  their  physical  structure."  Professor
Huxley  has  made  no  advance  upon  Pliny  in  his  statement
that,  "  so  far  as  structure  is  concerned,  man  diiFers  to  no
greater  extent  from  the  animals  which  are  immediately  below
him,  than  these  do  from  other  members  of  the  same  order ;"
but  Huxley  draws  from  this  the  inference,  "  tliat  man  has


PROGRESSIVE  ORDER  NOT  DEVELOPMENT.         37

proceeded  from  a  modification  or  an  improvement  of  some
lower  animal,  some  simpler  stock."  This  idea  found  a  tan-
gible expression  m  the  early  pagan  mythologies.  The  god
of  flocks  and  shepherds  among  the  Greeks  was  believed  to
"■  ^  a  compound  creature,  having  the  horns  and  feet  of  a  goat
and  the  face  of  a  man.  Their  satyrs  or  forest  divinities  were
creatures  that  blended  the  animal  with  the  human.  Tlie
fauns  of  Roman  legend  were  supposed  to  mark  the  transition
from  the  bnite  creation  to  man, — an  idea  that  Hawthorne
has  finely  wrought  up  in  his  "  Marble  Fann."  Thus  the
question  of  man's  development  out  of  some  lower  type  of
creature  does  not  lie  between  new  discoveries  of  science  and
old  dogmas  of  theology.  The  notion  is  as  old  as  the  oldest
fables.  Still,  it  deserves  most  candid  consideration.  We
will  first  define  precisely  what  the  doctrine  is.
