The Answer of
ERN ST HAEC KEL
TO THE FALSEHOODS
OF THE
JESUIT S
C atholic and Protestant
From the German Pamphlet “ SANDALION,” and
“ MY CHURCH DEPARTURE *
Being Haeckel's Reasons, as Stated by Himself,
for His Late Withdrawal from the Free
Evangelical Church, with Comments
by Joseph McCabe and Thaddeus
Burr Wake m an
-->
§ºž SºH.
Sºś
Sº/Ağ)
%| 34 % §§
Šišć º
New York
T H E T R U T H S E E K E R C O M P A N Y
19||





G -
36 7
, Hſ 123
Že..., 72 72.7%).

The Answer of
ERNST HAECKEL
TO THE FALSEHOODS
OF THE
JESUITS
Catholic and Protestant
From the German Pamphlet “ SANDALION,” and
“ MY CHURCH DEPARTURE “
Being Haeckel's Reasons, a.S Stated by Himself,
for His Late Withdrawal from the Free
Evangelical Church, with Comments
by Joseph McCabe and Thaddeus
Burr Wake m an
New York
T H E T R U T H S E E K E R C O M P A NY
19||
& H
36 y
H /33
Copyrighted
By
THE TRUTH SEEKER COMPANY
1911
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
BY ERNST HAECKEL.
INTRODUCTION. In April, 1905, I delivered three
lectures in Berlin on the war over the idea of evo-
lution. They furnished the occasion for a number of
violent attacks, directed not so much against the
essential questions of our modern doctrine of evo-
'ution as against myself, author of “The Riddle of
the Universe,” in which I treated those great ques-
tions from the standpoint of the monistic phi-
losophy. To discredit monism my works were
called the worthless, misleading fabrications of a
dilettante. My slanderers were especially success-
ful in their efforts to brand my embryologic expo-
sitions and the illustrations accompanying them as
reprehensible “falsifications of science.” What they
seized upon as most welcome proofs were the
These pages present a condensed translation of the
answer made to his Christian slanderers by Prof. Ernst
Haeckel of the University of Jena, Germany. The Eng-
lishing of “Sandalion” was done for THE TRUTH SEEKER
by Thomas Seltzer. “My Church Departure” is translated
by Thaddeus Burr Wakeman.
4 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
schematized figures of young human embryos and
the embryos of other vertebrates, which I placed
next to one another for comparison in a number
of my works.
The embryos of vertebrates, especially of mam-
mals, are most important in proving the history of
our descent. With the help of comparative an-
atomy and paleontology, these embryos demonstrate
to every unprejudiced observer our close kinship
with the other mammals. Unfortunately the mys-
terious province of comparative embryology is re-
mote from the usual fields of culture. It requires
very much study, thorough preparation in morph-
ology, and careful discipline of one's critical faculty.
The opponents of the doctrine of evolution took ad-
vantage of this fact. They charged me with wilful
deception and falsifications, because I schematized
the pictures of the embryos. By “schematize” I
mean I omitted unessential adjuncts and strongly
emphasized essential form relations. I also filled
in deficiencies here and there by comparative syn-
theses.
These Jesuitic attacks recently obtained a very
wide circulation and force me to enter into a dis-
cussion of my so-called falsifications. I will take
a concrete, highly important example, the extreme-
ly interesting sandalion by which I will show in
what a despicable way the Jesuits themselves falsi-
fied the truth.
THE NATURAL SCIENCES AND RELIGIOUS Con-
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 5
CEPTIONS. The great struggle for truth, the strug-
gle to attain knowledge, carried on at all times by
thinking men, assumed a different character after
the beginning of the twentieth century from the
character it had ever before had. In the
eighteenth century the free spirit of enlighten-
ment had already been furthered by a great
number of the most eminent thinkers. But it
was not until the nineteenth century, the “cen-
tury of natural science,” that it achieved the
dominant position inconceivable in previous cul-
tural epochs.
The remarkable progress in the natural sciences
must perforce have had profound influence on the
philosophy of thinking men. The essential dif-
ference between the clear dicta of reason in pure
science and the nebulous imaginings of religion
came out more sharply than ever before and mani-
fested itself in many more ways. The positive facts
actually acquired from modern natural Science as
well as our experiments have led us to the firm con-
viction that the entire world proceeds according
to “great, eternal iron laws based upon the very
nature of things, and that the highest concept,
God, lies in those laws themselves.” This is what
we believe. On the opposite side are the adherents
of the traditional churches. They maintain that a
personal god created and rules the world, that he
discovered the natural laws according to which the
world's development takes place.
6 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
The church militant very soon realized the dan-
ger with which the monistic doctrine of evolution
threatened its dominion over the minds of the peo-
ple. It began an energetic campaign against Dar-
winism, and in the latter third of the nineteenth
century the struggle took a prominent place in the
spiritual life of all circles. But by the end of the
century I could definitely assert in my “Riddle of
the Universe” (1899) that the monistic idea of evo-
lution had triumphed, and the dualistic doctrine of
creation had been completely defeated in all prov-
inces of modern natural philosophy.
Then the defeated church militant and the
school of dualistic philosophy connected with it
deemed it wise to change front and take unto them-
selves the victorious doctrine of evolution. In this
direction the Jesuits became extraordinarily active
—for centuries they had been extremely successful
in the art of falsifying the truth. I speak both of
the Catholic Jesuits and the Protestant Jesuits.
The various schools of the Catholic Jesuits, em-
braced in the general designation of Thomists, en-
deavored to revive the scholastic philosophy of St.
Thomas Aquinas. Competing with them were the
orthodox schools of the Protestant Jesuits, who
united in the Kepler League and misused the name
of the great astronomer Johann Kepler to veil their
true aim.
The general object of both these Christian leagues
is the subjugation of rational Science to the tradi-
ANSWER To THE JESUITs. 7
tional dogmas of the Christian faith. They now
believe they will reach their goal most surely if
they preach the harmony of the two contradictory
philosophies, the “creation by evolution.” A good
means seems to them to be the overthrow of the
Monist League, founded in 1905, which has made
it its duty to develop and propagate the idea of
monism.
Though the Jesuits of both confessions went at
the zealous pursuit of their goal by undauntedly
practicing the known frauds of Jesuitism and per-
petrating the riskiest falsifications in science, they
adopted the genuinely Jesuitic tactics of charging
others with their own crimes. They concealed their
own deceptions by accusing the upholders of mon-
ism, myself in especial, with conscienceless distor-
tions of the truth. But they are very careful not
to take a definite stand against the great principles
in which they differ from me. They direct their
attacks against a few shortcomings in my works—
Some assumptions and daring hypotheses, or figures
illustrating my popular works, which have not been
thoroughly elaborated or are schematized.
THE THOMISTS AND KEPLERISTs. The remark-
able history of the Society of Jesuits and their in-
fluence upon world history are well known. The
spirit of lying and hypocrisy at the bottom of their
whole system, their main principle, “the end jus-
tifies the means,” have become a byword. Any
transgression, any crime is permitted if it serves
8 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
the highest end. “Everything for the greater glory
of God” (Omnia in majorem Dei gloriam). The
Society of Jesuits obtained its greatest influence
through the three significant declarations of war
against reason by which Pius IX. tried to get the
Christian world to bow before his almighty Sceptre.
These were the dogma of immaculate conception
(1854), the encyclical and the syllabus (1864), an
absolute condemnation of modern civilization and
culture, and the dogma of the pope's infallibility
(1870). In accepting these dogmas, these deeds
of religious violence, modern Catholicism identified
itself completely with Jesuitism.
R. H. Francé in 1904 very happily characterized
Jesuitic science. He called it a serious menace, and
was quite right in doing so because “it systematical-
ly smuggles the Jesuitic spirit into science, because,
as a result, it distorts all problems and the solu-
tion to them, and because it skilfully turns upside-
down the very principle of science.” But this is not
all. The worst danger resides in the fact that we
are not sufficiently conscious of our danger. The
general public and even scientists fall right into
the cleverly prepared trap and believe there is such
a thing as a Jesuitic science, the results of which
may be taken seriously.
All this is equally true of the Keplerists. Their
“Christian science” is just as false as the “Jesuitic
Science.” Both pursue the same end, the amal-
gamation of the doctrine of the Christian faith with
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 9
the results of modern science, in other words, the
subjection of Science to Christian teachings.
Numerous Catholic associations, with more or
less distinct shades of difference between them, may,
in a wide sense, be included in the name Thomist.
ERICH WASMANN. The Jesuit father Erich Was-
mann is the most important personality among the
numerous learned Jesuits who are at present fight-
ing for the Christian belief in revelation and against
the monistic natural philosophy. He is distin-
guished for a wide knowledge of zoology, for his
brilliant Oratory, and his skill at fooling people by
clever dialectics.
Through acute study of the life and form of in-
Sects, especially of ants and ant guests, Wasmann
won a reputation as a learned entomologist. But
the scientific zoology of modern times makes very
different demands upon the student. It requires
years of thorough study in comparative anatomy
and Ontogeny, in paleontology and physiology. A
zoologist who has chosen the study of vertebrates
for his specialty must know medicine well, for the
simple reason that the human organism is in every
way better known to us than that of any other ani-
mal. As soon as Wasmann leaves the narrower
sphere of his entomology and enters upon this
province, his zoologic knowledge reveals astound-
ing deficiencies.
By his scientific studies combined with fanatic
religious zeal Wasmann won a leading position
10 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
among the Thomists, such as Dennert has among the
Keplerists. Both are clever and indefatigable in
their agitation for the “Christian natural sciences,”
both are unscrupulous in the choice of their means,
both are invincible when an attempt is made to re-
fute their blind belief with the logic of reason.
In my lectures in Berlin in 1905 I entered into a
detailed criticism of Wasmann's chief work deal-
ing with the great general problem of the modern
natural philosophy, Die moderne Biologie und die
Entwickelungslehre. Two years later Wasmann
made his reply in three lectures at Berlin, which be-
came of general interest because they were the im-
mediate occasion for an open scientific battle. Twelve
speakers opposed Wasmann, and thoroughly contro-
verted him. Nevertheless the entire ultramontane
press celebrated his public defeat as a brilliant
victory.
Professor Ludwig Plate drew the following con-
clusions from the debate: “That genuine scientific
research is impossible within the province of the
ultramontane church; that the sharp, irreconcilable
contrast between science and the orthodox Chris-
tian religion came out very clearly at the discus-
sion; that even scientific investigators are well
aware of the limitations of their knowledge, and
that there are ultimate questions to which no answer
can be found.”
All these objections to the mystic falsification of
the doctrine of evolution by Erich Wasmann as the
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 11
type of the Thomist, apply equally to the sophistical
misrepresentation of genetics by Eberhard Dennert,
founder of the Kepler League.
Two years later Wasmann made a vain attempt
to rescue “Catholic natural science” and thereby
destroy monism. He delivered three lectures at
Innsbruck, which differed from his Berlin lectures
only in that they contained still more violent attacks
against me personally, against my anthropogeny,
and against monism.
THE KEPLER LEAGUE. The younger brother of
the Catholic Thomist League, the new Protestant
Kepler League, was founded in November, 1907,
by one of the most zealous representatives of
“Christian Natural Science,” Dr. Eberhard Den-
nert, principal of a Protestant school. The aim of
the League was set forth in his first pamphlet—“to
further the knowledge of natural science among
the people at large. The aim also is to carry on
the fight of natural science against monism.” That
the latter was the chief object of the League is
shown by the circumstances preceding the forma-
tion of the League and its entire later attitude. In
the very first volume of the League's publications
Dennert said: “It is the religious and moral dan-
gers with which monism threatens the life of the
entire people that led to the formation of the
League.” In the preface to the sanie volume he
expressly states: “The members of the Kepler
League stand on the ground of theism.” In many
12 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
other passages of his numerous works he emphasizes
the very Christian character of his mystic, dualis-
tic philosophy. The work of his that most clearly
shows the purpose of his ceaseless agitation is
Der Darwinismus und seine Einfluss aud die heutige
Volksbewegung (Darwinism and its Influence upon
the Modern Popular Movement). In it we find
definitely formulated the “teachings of the Chris-
tian philosophy.” We learn that: 1. “The world is
limited by time and was created by an eternal per-
sonal God. 2. The method according to which God
created the world has not been revealed to us, nor
has it anything to do with the case (?). 3. God
made man the crown of creation by putting his
spirit into mortal matter and giving man moral
liberty. 4. God guides and rules this world accord-
ing to immutable natural laws made by him. It is
conceivable and therefore possible (!) that God,
their creator and lord, can break those laws.”
There are six more of these in the same spirit,
and the entire ten constitute the content of the Kep-
ler catechism, by which Dennert as the “scientific
lirector” of the Kepler League would give its Chris-
tian philosophy a firm foundation.
Every unprejudiced thinker instantly perceives
that the catechism does not rest upon the firm
foundation of scientific experience, but upon mystic
revelation, the very opposite pole of scientific ex-
perience.
LEAGUE OF FALSIFIERs. In my statement of De-
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 13
cember 24, 1908, “Falsifications of Science,” occa-
sioned by the severe attacks of Brass and Tartúffe,
I showed up in their true colors the Jesuitic accusa-
tions of my opponents. I called the Kepler League
a league of scientific falsifiers. I might have
said the same of the Catholic Thomist League, be-
cause their methods and aims are absolutely similar.
The Keplerists indignantly denied the charge and
dubbed it a “monstrosity.” I ask the gentlemen:
“Is it no monstrosity of the leading authors of the
Kepler League, acting upon the false charges of
Dr. Brass, to call me in numerous articles and
pamphlets a scientific liar and falsifier of science?”
That is, call a scientist a falsifier of science who for
half a century at a personal sacrifice pursued one
goal, to learn the truth in nature, and by the help
of its teachings free all thinking men from the yoke
of superstition.
As a matter of fact, it is both Jesuitical leagues
who have falsified the whole idea of the cosmos by
their endeavor to amalgamate the monistic results
of modern natural science with the mystic, dual-
istic dogmas of the miracle-believing church.
Dr. Rudolf Hoernes, professor of paleontology
and geology at Graz, said in one of his articles:
“The Keplerists are not concerned to free science
or serve truth. All they care about is to establish
firmly the temporal dominion of the church, for
which end they are willing to adopt any means.”
In another article, speaking of my alleged falsifi-
14 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
cations of pictures of embryos, he writes: “The
truth is, the leaders of the Kepler League want to
do the utmost damage to the theory of evolution by
discrediting one of its most prominent representa-
tives. At least they want to prevent to the greatest
possible extent the dissemination among lay per-
sons of a teaching that interferes with their phi-
losophy. And it is in disseminating that teaching
among lay persons that Haeckel performed special
services.”
THE JESUITIC PRESS. The severe warfare I
have been forced to carry on for forty years with
the clerical and conservative press has enriched me
with noteworthy experiences of its Jesuitical tactics
and practices. In recent years it took the occasion
of the embryo dispute to say particularly brutal and
perfidious things. I therefore feel that here is the
place to show up its conduct.
Dr. Arnold Brass wrote two polemical pamphlets,
Wahrheit (1906) and Affenproblem (1908), which
were immediately greeted with joy by all the
enemies of intellectual progress and enlightenment.
Correspondents to the reactionary press gave them
the widest publicity. Hundreds of important and
minor papers forthwith published Brass's false
charge to the whole world. To none of them did
it occur to find out the real truth about these “over-
whelming” accusations or refer them to competent
trained men. And when scientifically trained men
of their own accord made statements in rebuttal,
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 15
as they did in several places, the clerical and con-
servative press ignored them. Dr. Brass's over-
whelming charges were repeated with visible glee.
It is highly regrettable that a large part of the
Liberal press was duped by these Jesuitical tactics.
Many unbiased papers lent credence to the charges
and gave them wider currency. The chief cause
of this is the general ignorance of the biologic facts
involved in the embryo dispute. It was very sly
in Dr. Brass to make his attack in a dark spot re-
mote from the general fields of culture and offering
peculiar difficulties even to the trained specialist.
An example of the extent to which the Liberal
press was deceived is offered by the case of
“Tartüffe,” which aroused much comment.
PROFESSOR TARTUFFE. After the appearance in
1908 of Dr. Arnold Brass's das Affenproblem, the
Allgemeine Zeitung of Munich published an
anonymous article upon it. This anonymous arti-
cle was the direct occasion of my reply of Decem-
ber 24th, and it produced a whole series of disputes.
The main point about the “Tartüffe” article (as I
had to call it!) is that the anonymous Professor
X takes Dr. Brass's “extraordinarily severe
charges” as proved and—unwillingly l—deduces:
“That they not only destroy the scientific reputa-
tion of a man who, despite some slips, was held in
high repute among wide circles, but they also ex-
pose a positive stain upon German science (!).”
The rest of the article and the author's appeal to
16 - ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
the opinion of the German embryologists were so
perfidious, so Jesuitical, that I felt I was forced to
my reply of December 24th. Besides, I had another
motive, occasioned by the action of the Allgemeine
Zeitung. The editors sent me the issue containing
the “Tartüffe article” with a characteristic letter, in
which they offer me their columns for a short reply
to the article, which, they said, they had printed
with profound regret though they had felt com-
pelled to do so because it came from a source raised
high above doubt both as to scientific knowledge
and loyalty.
Of course, I did not accept the Allgemeine
Zeitung’s offer, but sent my reply to the Berlin
Volkszeitung, the editor of which is one of the few
liberal newspaper heads who have worked for
the advancement and propagation of the doctrine
of evolution.
THE FALSIFICATIONS OF ARNOLD BRASS. Dr.
Arnold Brass provides the most plentiful source
upon which the Jesuitic press has been drawing for
some years to make charges against me of falsify-
ing illustrations. Much as I dislike to touch upon
the personal character of my opponents, I am com-
pelled to do so in this case. For Brass is consider-
ed the star witness in the great “embryo suit,” and
it is upon his authority that the numerous charges
of falsification are brought against me. He is dis-
tinguished from most of the other scientists in the
Kepler League by his knowledge of zoology, anthro-
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 17
pology, comparative anatomy and ontogeny. But he
misuses his knowledge to the utmost in order to
throw a veil over the truth, or, as he says, to ad-
vance the cause of truth. The whole clerical press,
therefore, and especially the Keplerist papers, honor
him as a St. George who killed the dragon of un-
belief, monism.
In the summer of 1906 Brass wrote a blooklet of
ninety-six pages entitled Ernst Haeckel als Biologe
und die Wahrheit. I shall refer to it as Wahrheit.
It contains sharp attacks upon my monistic natural
philosophy, especially as set forth in my “Riddle
of the Universe,” and is full of perversions and ab-
Solute untruths. At the time I ignored his charges,
as I did numerous other works against the “Riddle
of the Universe.” It was two years later that I
was compelled to come out against Brass. In an
address delivered in Berlin at a meeting of the
Christian Socialists (April 1, 1908) he attacked me
severely for having falsified the pictures of embryos.
“The speaker,” he said, “can make these charges
from accurate knowledge directly acquired, since
he himself made the true drawings for Haeckel.”
Not a word of this is true! The base calumny
necessitated my setting the matter right, and led me
to write my article of December 24, 1908. Brass's
answer to my article was his Affenproblem, the
subtitle to which is “Professor Ernst Haeckel, his
falsifications of science and its defense by German
anatomists and zoologists.”
18 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
Dr. Brass is very active as the official lecturer of
the Kepler League. In an authentic communica-
tion from the League he is recommended, and the
following statement is made: “Dr. Brass's pay is
guaranteed by the League.” This statement is im-
portant, for observe what Brass himself said in
the same year, 1909: “Besides, I am free. Nobody
commissions me to lecture, etc. I am not the lec-
turer of the Kepler League, nor do I draw my
salary or any pay whatsoever from that body.”
There you have that highly lauded Christian love
of truth of the pious Keplerists'
It would take a huge volume to correct the mis-
statements, false deductions, and positive lies in Dr.
Brass's lectures and writings. I shall limit myself
to a critical discussion of a few points that can easily
be made clear to every honorable person with some
insight. -
Skeletons of Anthropoid Apes. Few observa-
tions are so directly convincing of the close kinship
of man and the anthropoid ape as a critical com-
parison of the skeletons. It was a very happy idea
of the English genius Thomas Huxley to place pic-
tures of the skeletons of man and the four sur-
viving anthropoid apes on the front page of his
“Man’s Place in Nature.” I copied the pictures in
my “Anthropogeny.” Later in my published ad-
dresses delivered in Berlin on the war about the
idea of evolution, I used pictures of the same five
skeletons, but from specimens in my own collection.
FIG. 279. FIG 28o. FIG. 281.
Orang Chimpanzee * g
(Anthropithecus). (Gori ((a ). ( / /orno).
Fig 270. Orang .
f //y/obates). (Saty ºrcs).
278-282. --Skeleton of a man (Fig. 282) and the four anthropoid apes (Fig 278. Gibbon,
(Froin A/uxley.) Cf. Figs. 203-209.
FIGS
28o, Chimpanzee : Fig. 281, Gorilla).
Fig.


ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 19
I purposely choose a younger chimpanzee and
orang outang, because their similarity to man is
more striking than that of older apes. The skele-
tons were photographed by my tried collaborator,
Mr. Adolf Giltsch, and neither he nor I made any
change whatsoever in their form or position.
Now what does Dr. Brass say about these clear,
absolutely faithful photographs? He indulges in
the following untruths—for the greater glory of
God “These tables show intentional falsifications
to uphold the false caption [Skeletons of the five
Anthropoid Apes]. The uprightness of man's car-
riage is concealed. The gorilla's knee has been
pressed to make it appear to be standing straight.
The walking posture of all the apes is false.
This table is an example of how Haeckel misuses
the works of other people.”
Still more absurd is a criticism of Dr. Brass of
tables I intend to give a museum. They are not
yet made, the plan for them has not yet even been
prepared. But that does not deter Dr. Brass from
dishing up the following to his credulous readers:
“I have seen some of the tables which are to serve
as object lessons in the museum, and they make me
feel ashamed for Haeckel and his friends.”
We all know how tender the ape mother is of her
young. Yet Brass teaches us that it is exactly the
“selfless mother-love and mother-care that clearly
distinguish man from all mammals and removes
him far above the impulses and instincts of a beast.”
20 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
Dr. Brass also denies the existence of superfluous
rudimentary organs. By that surprising decree he
expunges an entire chapter from zoology and botany,
one of the most interesting chapters of the whole
of biology.
Another strange statement of his is, “The cells
of the human tissue differ conspicuously from those
of other mammals.” Now every histologist, every
student, every physician who has examined micro-
scopically the human tissue and the tissue of other
mammals knows that their coarser and finer struc-
ture, the morphologic and physiologic characteristics
of their cells are exactly the same. In sixty years,
ever since thousands of accurate observations have
been made of the structure of the epithelium, the
glands, the cartilage, the bones, the plain and
striated muscles no one has succeeded in finding any
histologic differences between man and the other
animals.
The same is true of the egg cell. Dr. Brass says
the human egg cell is different from the ape's
egg cell. He is the only one who has discovered
that it is
My Embryo Pictures. In the earliest stages the
resemblance of the Outer form and inner structure
of the embryos of the amniota, that is, of mammals,
reptiles, and birds, are surprisingly alike. The most
experienced specialists are not able to distinguish
the young embryo of animals that later are so con-
Fig. A. Human Sandalion according to Ernst Haeck-
el. This figure is a schematized copy of Fig. B. The
natural symmetry has been restored, and attached em-
bryonal parts have been omitted.

ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 21
spicuously different as man and ape, dog and rab-
bit, bird and squirrel.
In this experiential fact of comparative embry-
ology I see important proof of the theory of evolu-
tion. In many of my works I placed in juxtaposi-
tion a number of various embryos of amniota in
three stages of development. I intentionally omitted
unessential features from the representations, in
order that the essential features should come out all
the more clearly. It is these “schematizations” that
have furnished Brass and his Keplerists with the
best points at which to aim their calumnies. Others
did not “approve” them either, although the right to
use schematized reproductions, especially in illus-
trating difficult form relations, is generally recog-
nized in text books and popular works.
In charging me with falsification they themselves
falsified in the most brazen way. According to
their allegations I maintained that the embryos I
had compared are absolutely identical. All I had
said is that their similarity is so great as to be con-
fusing and deceptive. Neither I nor any scientist
ever made the senseless statement that the embryos
of men and apes, dogs and rabbits are at any stage
of development identical. The very fact that they
evolve into different things refutes such a thesis.
Even in the simple, spherical germ-cell chemical
differences in the molecular composition of the
plasma may be assumed with certainty, though the
22 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
limited means at our command prevent us from
proving that they exist. -
The Sandalion of Vertebrates. The sandalion or
Sandal-germ is one of the most interesting natural
forms. It is that important germ form of the em-
bryo of the higher vertebrates or amniota which has
the simple shape of a sandal or sole of a shoe. It
is a thin, somewhat elliptical body, narrower in the
middle and rounded and broader at the ends (Figs.
A, B, C). It is an early stage of the embryo, at
which nothing of the later characteristic form is to
be discerned. None of the separate parts of the
body are visible. Even vertebration has not yet be-
come apparent. There is a very slight variation
in its shape among the different amniota, especially
in the relation of the length to the breadth and the
rounding of the two halves. But its composition,
or internal structure from a few simple primitive
organs is the same in all amniota.
The Human Sandalion. Figs. B and C represent
the only two specimens of the human sandalion in
its earliest stages of which we are certain that they
have been completely observed. They are copied
from the handsome Handatlas der Entwickelungs-
geschichte des Menschen, by Julius Kollman. In
1889—twenty-two years ago!—Count F. Spee pub-
lished in the Archiv fur Anatomie “Observations of
a human germ-disk with open medullary groove and
canalis neurentericus.” The excellent reproductions
Count Spee made of this extremely important hu-
Tº
Sacculus vitellinus–º º
-
--
* \
. . . . .
Amnion
Medullary *
Canalis neurenterious º - º
- -
- -- -
Primitive streak -º -
Pedunculus abdominalis -
-
- -
vini choriales -º-º-º- -º-, .
ºjº ºsº
-
Fig. B. Human Sandalion according to Count Spee.






ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 23
man sandal-germ and its grooves, which are of
great significance, have been used in all later text
books and embryological plates.
The famous human sandalion—two millimetres
long !—is of extreme importance both for the onto.
geny and the phylogeny of man, because it is the
youngest and smallest embryo of the human race of
which we possess reliable observations, and on
which we can see the grooves revealing the whole
finer structure of the organism. It is probably
about twelve days old. Younger human embryos
have never come under observation, though thou-
sands of them are produced daily. At this early
state the sandalion both in shape and internal
structure is exactly the same in man as in the mam-
mals most closely allied to man.
This thin germ-disk resembling the sole of a shoe,
being a bit narrower in the middle than at the ends,
is about twice as long as it is broad. Along the
middle of the back surface running from one end
more than half the length of the sandalion is the
medullary furrow, the beginnings of the spinal cord;
at the other end, the primitive streak, and in be-
tween, connecting them, the canalis neurentericus.
Falsifications of Sandalion Reproductions. In
addition to its ontogenetic and phylogenetic value,
Count Spee’s classic embryo possesses Special in-
terest of a legal character, I may say. For it fur-
nishes circumstantial evidence that the charges of
falsifications made against me are malicious. No
24 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
competent embryologist has any doubt that the
sandalion in man and all other mammals is absolute-
ly symmetrical. The two sides divided at one end
by the medullary furrow, at the other end by the
primitive streak are absolutely the same in size and
shape.
Now, apparently, Count Spee's reproduction con-
tradicts this assumption. Here the outline is a bit
unsymmetrical. At one end the left half is some-
what narrower, at the other end somewhat broader
than the right half. In addition, the primitive
streak is not exactly in the middle. No unpreju-
diced observer who is aware of the difficulties at-
tendant upon the preparation and conservation of
So extremely soft a body doubts that this asymmetry
is purely accidental and is without morphologic sig-
nificance. It arose when the delicate little germ
leaf was transferred to the slide. But Count Spee,
the happy discoverer of this treasure, most con-
Scientiously drew it just as he saw it under the
microscope and did not give it the symmetrical
shape we are justified in saying it has.
In my “Anthropogeny” I made an absolutely
faithful copy of Count Spee's picture. But along-
side I put an improved picture of the same sanda-
lion, that is, I removed the accidental asymmetry.
I also omitted the disturbing remnants of the at-
tached parts, which are of no significance in this
case. i did this for the sake of comparison between
the human sandalion and the similar embryos of a
- - ------
- Amnion
- Embryonaischild
– Pedunculus annii
--Serosa
---
Ductus allantoides
Willi chorales
Fig. C. Human Sandalion according to Eternod.



ANSWER TO THE JISUITS. 25
rabbit and a pig. I am firmly convinced that my
schematized figure more truly reproduces the shape
of the symmetrical sandalion than the exact copy
made by the discoverer, Count Spee. The lay per-
son, therefore, in comparing the shape of the human
sandalion and that of other mammals can obtain a
better idea of their true relations from my repro-
duction than from Count Spee’s. The student of
comparative embryology who sees that the essentials
in both reproductions are the same will find that
my “falsification” is perfectly justified and useful
for purposes of instruction.
MY CHURCH DEPARTURE.
BY ERNST HAECKEL.
Since I have lately completely withdrawn from
the Evangelical church, there comes to me a wish
from many sides—and first from our Free Word—
that I could make public my reasons for this step.
So now that I must meet this wish I limit myself
to the following short paragraphs:
1. My personal relations to religion in general,
and to Christianity in particular, I have already set
forth in my well-known book “The World Riddle”
(“Riddle of the Universe”). But for the better
understanding and completion of that confession
the following facts and considerations must con-
tinue it.
2. Brought up by pious parents who belonged to
the Free Evangelical church, then under the charge
of the [famous] Schleiermacher, I remained dur-
ing the first twenty years of my life a convinced
and zealous adherent of that liberal form of Prot-
estantism.
Communicated to the “Free Word,” Frankfort-on-the-
Main, Germany. Translated for THE TRUTH SEEKER by
T. B. Wakeman.
28 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
3. But first, during my five years course of
Academic Studies in the departments of Natural
Science and Medicine (1852-1857), and later, es-
pecially through my many travels, I gradually
reached, through heavy Soul conflicts, the convic-
tion that the mystic faith-teachings of the Christian
religion were completely irreconcilable with the cer-
tain results of scientific experience.
4. The changes and varied course of my life,
in its third decade, also as thoroughly convinced
me that the Christian religion, as far as the ethical
and practical affairs and conduct of life were con-
cerned, gave foundations just as little unassailable,
unreliable and unsatisfactory in every point of view,
as were those of its theoretic View of the World—
[its cosmology].
5. As I had been thus from my early life in-
clined and accustomed to earnestly reflect over the
facts and appearances of things, and to follow out
their real and efficient causes, I soon worked my
way from an originally dualistic and idealistic view
of the world to a pure monistic and realistic phi-
losophy: In so doing of decisive influence in the
earlier stages were the writings of Goethe, and
later (since 1860) those of Darwin.
6. The fundamental lines (Grundguge) of a
strictly monistic, actually unifying [integrating]
philosophy, which gave itself to me especially from
the teachings of evolution, I have firstly outlined
in my “General Morphology of Organisms”—my
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 29
introductory work, in 1866; and later, in a more
popular form, largely from that work, in my “Nat-
ural History of Creation,” in 1868.
7. Next followed in natural order, “The Confes-
sion of an Inquirer Into Nature,” growing out of
that Natural History. This Confession, given as
my address at Altenburg in 1892, entitled “Mon-
ism,” definitely formulated MonisM, as the Bond
of Union between science and religion: and thereby
was especially emphasized the utter impossibility
of reconciling the Christian beliefs about “crea-
tion,” etc., with the important facts of evolution as
now established.
8. In November, 1905, at Jena, the German
Monistic Union (Bund) was founded by the ad-
herents of a strongly unitary view of the world,
resting only on the results of a scientific knowledge
of Nature; and at the wish of many friends and
students I became its honorary president; and
thereby was also accepted by us as Bond of Union
and rule of conduct, the “Thirty Theses” which had
been published in 1904 in The Free Word at Frank-
furt.
9. Since for more than twenty years I had in-
wardly, from pure conviction, absolved myself
from the faith-teachings of Christianity, it would
have been only natural to have given proper expres–
sion to this conviction outwardly by withdrawal
from the Evangelical church. But this last step I
left untaken out of regard to my family and some
30 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
dear friends to whom I would thereby have brought
heavy sorrow and injury.
10. But if now, after ripe conviction, I have re-
solved upon this last step it is because, in part, the
personal considerations have meanwhile been re-
moved by my long delay, and in part because now
changes have made it repugnant to my sense of
honor to continue even the external appearance of
religious inconsistency, and to thus justify the cus-
tomary hypocrisy in our land; to wit:
11. The reaction in regard to the church affairs
and in politics which has developed in our German
realm during the last twenty-two years under the
government of what is called the “New Course”
(“Neuen Kursus”) increases constantly, and en-
dangers more and more the freedom of the mental
and spiritual progress, and the welfare of our dear
fatherland.
12. With the deepest regret it must be con-
fessed that this reaction has found its strongest
support in the much bewondered person of our
highly gifted Emperor, William II., who, since the
beginning of his reign, has placed himself in opposi-
tion to the so-called “Old Course” (Alten Kursus)
of his grandfather, William I.
I belong to the genuine and grateful admirers of
this first Hohenzollern emperor and of his great
chancellor, Prince Otto von Bismarck, who, not
merely as helper in the work, but as Master
Architect, under the greatest difficulties, battled out
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 31
the proud structure of the new German empire.
Both of these great men were simple and free from
show in their appearance, wise and strong in their
action; both were gifted with a soul of genuine
piety, never subjected to a power-seeking clergy;
and they were accordingly as deeply hated by the
Evangelical “cant” venders as they were by the
ultramontane Catholic “center.”
13. In contrast with this, the present emperor
has nursed the romantic tendencies of his great
uncle, Frederick William IV., to whom he seems to
be related by his brilliant talent of speech, and his
many-sided artistic talents. He shares with him
also, as “Ruler by the Grace of God,” or “Instru-
ment of the Lord,” the often emphasized conviction
that “The Throne and The Altar must mutually
support each other”; and even so with the danger-
ous Catholicizing tendency of his lnew] Protestant
Christianity.
14. In September, 1904, when I attended the
International Freethinkers’ Congress at Rome, the
strangely “natural” friendship of the emperor and
the pope was much discussed. In the Romish pa-
pers the hope was expressed that the Emperor Wil-
liam would soon return to the bosom of “the only
salvation-giving church.” The ostensive display
which he paraded in the Vatican upon his visit to
Pope Leo XIII. (the most dangerous enemy of the
German Evangelical empire) estranged from him
the sympathies of the sensitively educated Italians,
32 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
and all the more, as he was then the guest of the
king of Italy at the Quirinal.
15. The evidence, plain to every eye, of his
Catholicizing tendencies was furnished by the em-
peror, this year, when Pope Pius X., by his famous
Borromean Encyclical, hurled into the face of
Protestantism the most shameful insults. Every-
where it was expected that William II., with his
highly developed sense of honor, would give to that
Romish German hostile pope (whom in 1899 I had
characterized as the greatest charlatan in history)
the becoming German rejoinder, but the Protestant
emperor remained silent and left to the Catholic
king of Saxony the honor of that reply.
16. The orthodox Evangelical church, which
had in spite of everything secured this ascendency,
and which has besides approached very near to the
Catholic church, has shared with it the theory and
practice of the Jesuits. Both cherish their funda-
mental principle: The end (pleasing to God) jus-
tifies and sanctifies the means (the persecution of
the heretics). Both contest with equal energy and
with like consequences the enlightenment of the
people and the progress of their knowledge and cul-
ture. To this end they use their powerful influence
in church and state [and school].
17. Thus the separation of church and state, and
also the absolute separation of church and school,
appears to be more pressingly presented to us than
ever before. In many civilized countries this sep-
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 33
aration, most important and useful to the state and
the school, has been long ago effected; in Germany
on the contrary, it stumbles over the most stiff-
necked opposition.
18. We must now more than ever seek by every
lawful means in our power to bring about this sep-
aration. For now the mighty power of the Catholic
and Evangelical clergy, by a close union with the
reactionary feudal nobility, is strengthened to a
most dangerous degree. Both use in true Jesuitical
way the cloak of religion for the veiling of their
selfish interests and their lust of power. The
notorious Black-blue Block threatens the founda-
tion of our mental and spiritual freedom.
19. Although these political considerations are
for me by far the most powerful motives for con-
sequent present withdrawal from the church, yet
they are reinforced by a sense of disgust (Ekel)
at the sham-holy hypocrisy and the old Byzantine
sneaking, cringing treachery, which in the splen-
dors of the showy new emperor throne threateris
to lead us all to a general and dangerous demoraliza-
tion. This compulsory education into an external
churchdoom destroys the noblest qualifications for
any true and inward religion.
20. And finally there confirms me in my deter-
mination to withdraw from the church, the neces-
sary defense I have had to make against the
measureless attacks and the honorless slanders
which during the last two years the clerical and re-
34. ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
actionary press combined have hurled against my
moral character. In the most vulgar modes of ex-
pression, and through hundreds of papers and
brochures, I am insulted and placed in the pillory
as a traitor. And why? Pretendedly, because I
have disgraced science through false illustration,
especially concerning embryos; but in fact because
for fifty years I have fearlessly and without regard
to consequences defended the true modern teachings
of evolution, and have furthered its most important
result: that from the vertebrate animals the human
species have descended. The two modern Brother-
hoods of Jesuit Societies (Bunds), the evangelical
Keplerbund, and the Catholic “Thomas Bund,”
have rivaled each other in these heinous charges.
To both and all of them I have at last devoted a
final and conclusive answer, which appeared in the
December number of Neuen Frankfurter Verlag
(now published as a pamphlet), under the title of
“Sandalion; an Open Answer to the False Charges
of the Jesuits.”
JOSEPH McCABE.

HAECKEL’S EMBBYO-DBAWINGS.
BY JOSEPH M’CABE.
During my wanderings at the Antipodes last
year it seemed to be the impression of the opposi-
tion that the most effective thorn they could strew
in my path was the candid confession of Professor
Haeckel that his drawings were forged. To judge
from the letters inserted in the public press, before
and after my visit, the clergy were positively weep-
ing over the pathetic and lamentable end of the
career of a great scientist. He was “morally and
scientifically dead.” In the book-shops, it is true,
he seemed to be very much alive; nor did any name
draw such hearty plaudits from Australasian au-
diences as that of Professor Haeckel. But from
Perth to Invercargill there was mourning in the ec-
clesiastical world at his sudden and inglorious
decease.
I have never told the whole truth in regard to
this episode of Haeckel's later years, because I did
not know it until this month. Let us have it out,
and readers of the Guide throughout the world
In the Literary Guide, London, March 1, 1911.
36 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
will be able to stem the tears of their clerical friends.
The discussion is not relegated to the Antipodes.
Only a few days ago a London lecturer wrote to
ask me the truth about it. Here is the truth; and
if the gentle readers find my language sinking at
times from the highest level of courtesy, I must
confess that I am not high-minded enough to speak
altogether politely of a malignant and unscrupulous
attempt, by dishonest means, to embitter the last
years of well-earned rest of one of the greatest
living scientists and the greatest living Rationalist.
I take the facts from Dr. Schmidt’s “Haeckel's
Embryonenbilder” and professor Haeckel’s “San-
dalion.”
The trouble began at the beginning of 1908.
Haeckel had published a new work on the origin
of man (not translated), with several very fine and
large plates. On this, Dr. Brass, a lecturer of the
“Keplerbund”—a sort of Christian Evidence So-
ciety masquerading as a Scientific Society—stated
that Haeckel had so far tampered with his figures
as to “put a human head on an ape-embryo, and
wice versa,” and this in spite of the fact that “he
had personally shown Haeckel the correct illustra-
tions.” Haeckel disdainfully replied that this was
“an audacious lie,” and later showed that he had
never had any such communication with Dr. Brass,
that the illustrations in question were accurate
copies of figures by well-known embryologists, and
that he had not drawn them himself at all. Dr.
ANSWER TO THE JESUITs. 37
Brass then amended his charge. Haeckel had, he
said, cut off the tail of the embryo of a macacus
(tailed monkey) and turned it into a tailless ape
(gibbon). Haeckel thereupon, while denying ex-
pressly the truth of the charge, published his fa-
mous “confession” that six or eight per cent of his
drawings were “falsified”; and a thrill of horror
ran through the religious world. Naturally, the
shudderers were not told that Haeckel spoke in
the most patent irony, and admitted having done
only what embryological illustrators were in the
habit of doing—including, as we shall see, Dr.
Dr. Brass.
The usual clerical version of the story is that
Haeckel was “forced to confess,” under pressure
from forty-seven of the leading scientists of Ger-
many. This is quite the boldest of all the inaccu-
racies—I am trying to be polite—I have ever seen
in the clerical press. Haeckel's statement appeared
in the anti-clerical Berliner Volksgeitung for De-
cember 29, 1908. No scientific man had at that
time intervened, and the next paragraph will show
what Haeckel's forty-seven colleagues really did.
Isolated medical men and professors were drawn
in. One, of good standing, Professor Keibel, de-
clared that Haeckel had, in perfect good faith, really
shortened the tail of an embryo-monkey, taken va-
rious other liberties, and inserted imaginary em-
bryos without saying so. The Keplerbund took
courage, and issued a circular to the leading Scien-
38 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
tific men of Germany, calling upon them to declare
themselves. They did; but not quite as Professor
Dennert wanted, and the clerical press represents.
Nearly all the leading embryologists and anatomists
in Germany signed this statement. I need only say
that the forty-seven names include Weismann,
Wiedersheim, Bonnet, Boveri, Kollmann, Hatschek,
Flechsig, Waldeyer, Korschelt, Hertwig, Lang,
Plate, Pfeffer, Rabl, Rückert, Rhumbler, Ruge,
Schwalbe, Goette, Chun, etc. And what they said
was—a few lines sufficed—that, “though they did
not like the kind of schematizing which Haeckel
practiced in some cases, they, in the interest of
Science and the freedom of teaching, condemned in
the sharpest manner the attack of Brass and the
Keplerbund on Haeckel.”
In face of that document, religious journals—
the journals which are always wondering how men
can possibly be truthful and good without their as-
sistance—are assuring their readers all over the
world that Haeckel is “morally and scientifically
dead,” and has been condemned by German science.
But was there not a counterblast to this defense
of Haeckel ? There was—the blast of a penny
trumpet. A document in condemnation of Haeckel
was issued by the Keplerbund, and signed by thirty-
six men, some of them of great distinction in the
world of science. But what our truthful friends
always omit to say in regard to this document is
that the men of real distinction who signed it were
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 39
astronomers, geologists, botanists, lawyers, etc.,
but never embryologists. Their judgment on the
point is absolutely worthless, and, indeed, they do
not pretend to be able to judge it. They take the
word of Dr. Brass, the worth of which we shall
see in a moment.
The second round had gone very badly for Herr
Brass. The third was fatal. Some amiable and
religious director of a bank chid Professor Hertwig
for letting the defender of the faith down so badly.
The distinguished embryologist replied that he had
welcomed that means of giving expression to his
“indignation,” which was “so much the greater as
he saw the name of Brass again for the first time
since the scientific activity of the man had come to
a deserved and unfortunate end in the field of
zoology—twenty-five years before.” A bad hit for
Dr. Brass. Then Professor Rabl, another of the
leading embryologists, son-in-law of Haeckel's
great opponent, Virchow, entered the lists, and fin-
ished the defender of the faith. In the Frankfurter
Zeitung for March 5, 1909, he, like Hertwig, em-
phasized the great services of Haeckel to science,
and showed that Brass had, in his illustrated works,
committed precisely the faults he brought against
Haeckel. Brass was, he said, a “mere layman” in
embryology, and university students had to be
warned not to trust his illustrations. Professor
Forel also joined in the defense of Haeckel.
So the “honor” of Professor Haeckel was amply
40 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
vindicated by the anatomists and embryologists of
Germany. It will be more difficult to rehabilitate
the honor of the religious press, which has, in de-
fiance of the plain facts of the case, trailed its un-
scrupulous slander over the world. But there is a
further point. What of this “practice of schema-
tizing” on Haeckel’s part which his colleagues “do
not like” P
In the first place, the assertion that it was done
to prove a thesis is part of the slander. Says
Professor Rabl: “Illustrations which are absolute-
ly true to nature prove Haeckel's phylogenetic de-
ductions far better and more convincingly than his
schematic figures do.” That cuts down a fine crop
of “inaccuracies.” Secondly, the general public
probably sees only one point of great importance in
Haeckel's embryonic figures—the gill-slits, which
so strikingly show the fish-ancestry. About these
there is no dispute. I have seen human embryos,
and any reader of the “Evolution of Man” knows
that the illustrations taken from other authors
wholly agree with those of Haeckel in this. Thirdly,
a writer for the general public, which is not per-
mitted to see undeveloped human beings, has not
the same task as a professor of embryology. For
instance, Haeckel commonly cuts away the ventral
pedicle and yelk sac and clears the abdomen. Pro-
fessor Keibel says that it is wrong. It is a mere
matter of opinion. That is an example of schema-
tizing.
EXTERIOR EVIDENCES OF KIN SHIP. TWO ‘‘ PRIMATES.”
- - -
ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIMATE OF ALL IRELAND.
THE BALD-HEADED CHIMPANZEE (ORDER PRIMATEs).
Anthropithecus calvus, described by Frank Beddard
in 1897 as Troglodytes calvus, differs considerably
from the ordinary A. Niger in the structure of the
head, the coloring, and the absence of hair in
parts.-Haeckel’s “Evolution of Man.”
Cardinal Logue, Archbishop of Armagh and chief
dignitary of the Catholic Church in Ireland, posed
for this photograph for the North American at the
archiepiscopal residence yesterday.-Philadelphia
North American, May 29, 1908.

ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 41
But we may, in conclusion, turn to Haeckel's own
book for his defense on this point. He has an
easy task with many of the “falsifications” which
the acute eye of Dr. Brass discovered. Some
readers will remember a fine plate showing the
skeletons of man and the four anthropoid apes—
which, in unconscious humor, I have entitled “Five
Anthropoid Apes”—in the “Last Words on Evolu-
tion.” Dr. Brass finds grave and purposive in-
accouracies in them. But they are photographs of
the actual skeletons. Next, Dr. Brass has person-
ally seen certain genetic tables for the instruction
of the public in Haeckel's Museum, and is “full of
shame for Haeckel and his friends.” But the tables
do not yet exist.
The best idea of this schematizing, however, can
be conveyed at once to any reader who has “The
Evolution of Man.” Fig. 137 (complete edition)
shows a human embryo drawn by Count Spee. Fig.
M. I, on Plate V (two pages later), shows the same
figure “schematized” by Haeckel for the purpose
of comparison. The charge of “falsifying” is ludi-
crous, and the aim of Haeckel quite plain. Yet this
is one of the classical examples. Another is the
alleged cutting-short of the tail of the poor em-
bryonic monkey. The truth is that even the human
embryo is so excellently tailed at an early stage
that there could be no point in such a procedure.
Again, where Brass quarrels with the number of
42 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
vertebrae in a human embryo, no definite number
was intended, as the number is variable.
These examples will suffice to explain Haeckel's
procedure. He has tried to aid the general reader
by schematizing six or eight per cent of his pic-
tures. Many of his colleagues think that he ought
not to have done so, but they sternly denounce the
indictment of his “honor,” and declare that more
exact figures prove the evolution of man even
more conclusively. Haeckel maintains that, in deal-
ing with an inexpert public, he was quite right in
putting certain figures diagrammatically, and ma-
king hypothetical drawings of others where the
actual object is not available. It is an academic
dispute. But that Haeckel confessed to misleading
the public, or misled the public in order to prove
his thesis, that any scientific men forced him to con-
fess, or that the embryologists and anatomists of
Germany ever sanctioned the attack on him, are
frigid and calculated inaccuracies. They have gone
through the religious press of the world. For the
Satisfaction of dishonoring in the minds of their
readers a man whose character is as great as his
service to science and to truth, they have repro-
duced, without the least scruple to inquire into its
truth or untruth, a mess of malignant mendacity.
The forgers are in the churches.
WHERE STANDS PROFESSOR HAECKEL
NOW 2
BY THADEUS BURR WAKEMAN.
To be able to get out of a great life trouble safely,
wisely, and well is a very great achievement; but a
greater is to be able to use such victory so as to
make it the greatest possible victory to one's self
and to others. It is now the great good fortune of
Professor Haeckel that he is in a position in which
he may be able to do both of these great things.
In his twenty reasons for leaving the church in the
last TRUTH SEEKER and in his recent pamphlet,
“Sandalion,” vindicating him and his motives from
the charges of the Jesuit conspiracy against him, he
stands out free and clear, the one noble man, pre-
pared by science, time and circumstances to do his
noblest work. That work would be the extension
around the earth of the monistic, secular scientific
Alliance founded by him upon his thirty Theses;
these Theses which really caused the Jesuit rage
and conspiracy against him. Because the truths
set forth by this scientific Luther could not be an-
swered, they determined to destroy the man by
44 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
striking down his moral character so that he might
not be believed. But “truth is mighty and will pre-
vail,” and so in the end it will fall upon and crush
these meanest of conspiring slanderers. They are
the meanest, for no other word can describe those
who attempt to “trade upon,” and so misuse the
ignorance of multitudes in order to get them to
morally assassinate the one who has spent his life in
trying to educate and enlighten them?
This is the way it was done: The word “San-
dalion” is a Greek word for sandal or shoe-sole,
largely used in the Orient. Biologists use the word
to describe the embryo forms of vertebrate and
mammalian animals which look like it. The evolu-
tion biologists show that the similarity of these
forms was such as to plainly indicate that all of
the higher forms of these animals were descended
from the lower forms of the vertebrates. This is
done by making type forms of the Sandalion varia-
tions of the different species to be compared. Such
“schematized” synthetic ideal forms are just as
necessary to the comparative biologist as his micros-
cope, camera, or chemical preservatives, and so such
forms have been in general use from Darwin,
Huxley and others for a long time, and by none
more effectively than by Professor Haeckel, the
leader in that department of science. It was only
necessary for one of these schematized forms to be
compared with some special one to discover dif-
ferences, which Haeckel points out were never ma-
ANSWER TO THE JESUITS. 45
terial, but that the succession of similarities was
carefully preserved—as is done in Huxley's suc-
cession of anthropoid and human skeletons, for the
same purpose; that it is not to deceive but to en-
lighten the observer by enabling him to connect
the links in the chain of evidence. There was no
intent or thought of fraud or deceit in all this in
the mind of Haeckel more than there was in the
mind of Darwin in his varying pictures, showing
the fertilization and variations of orchids. But the
pictures were not the same ! They were never in-
tended to be, and would be worthless if they were!
On this simple fact these Jesuits could load up
the uninformed minds and prejudiced feelings of
multitudes with a magnificent lie for the glory of
their “God,” and they did
On pages 45 of his Sandalion pamphlet Professor
Haeckel gives a page specimen of this Jesuit abuse,
and in the Appendix we find the response of the bi-
ologists of Germany practically in Haeckel's favor
unanimously—46 at one time—as far as any wrong-
ful intent was concerned. As to minor biological
details complete unanimity is not to be expected.
Doctors would not be doctors if they did not dis-
agree.
But as to the main contention that “the human
species have descended from the vertebrate ani-
mals,” there is no longer serious question. Darwin
and Huxley have been succeeded by Menchekoff,
the successor of Pasteur, by Haeckel, as the suc-
46 ANSWER TO THE JESUITS.
cessor of the great mass of the Scientists and evolu-
tionists of our time; and there is not the slightest
doubt that their verdict will stand affirmed and con-
firmed for ever !
Where, then, and for what, does Ernst Haeckel,
the representative of this great affirmation of
science, stand? He has answered by leaving the
church and joining the Monistic Secular Alliance
of the free-minded people of the world. In his
country, where church and state are united, he was
wise in not acting rashly. He did not leave until
an Alliance had been formed that could far more
than take its place for all the good it could do.
Not by his own act or choice, but by the evolution
of circumstances which he could not control, he
now stands before the civilized world with the
question: Shall Natural Science and Humanity, or
Supernatural Illusion and Dogma, lead the future
of the Human Race? If the former, the peoples
that surround the Atlantic ocean will see in the
Monistic Scientific Alliance the future “Republic
of Man.” If the latter, the supremacy of the Jesuits
and the pope will be the future of mankind.

wORKS ºf ERNST HAECKEL
HISTORY OF CREATION; or The Devel-
opment of the Earth and Its Inhabitants
by the Action of Natural Causes.
A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of Evolution in
General, and that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck
in Particular. The translation revised by Professor
E. Ray Lankester. Illustrated with Lithographic
Plates. In two vols., 12mo, revised. Cloth, $5.00.
EVOLUTION OF MAN
A Popular Exposition of the Principal Points of Human
Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Quarto, cloth, $1.20 net.
VISIT TO CEYLON
With Portrait and Map of India and Ceylon. “These
letters constitute one of the most charming books of
travel ever published, quite worthy of being placed by
the side of Darwin’s ‘Voyage of the Beagle.’”
Post 8vo, 348 pages. Cloth, $1.00.
RIDDLE OF THE UNIVERSE
This is an English translation of Prof. Haeckel’s
magnificent work, Die Weltrathsel. The main strength
of the book lies in a terse and telling summary of scien-
tific achievements of the nineteenth century in their
relation to the “Riddle of the Universe.” Post 8vo,
391 pages, $1.50.
WONDERS OF LIFE
The great success of “The Riddle of the Universe,”
a success which astonished Professor Haeckel, with the
innumerable letters that reached him asking for more
knowledge to supplement that of “The Riddle,” led
the author to write this volume, “The Wonders of
Life.” It is a popular study of biological philosophy,
dealing especially with problems relating to the nature
and evolution of the mind and the theory of knowledge
and truth. Post 8vo, 485 pages, $1.50 net. Postage
11 cents extra.
LAST WORDS ON EVOLUTION
A Popular Retrospect and Summary. Translated from
the Second Edition by Joseph McCabe. With three
plates and Haeckel's latest portrait. Dr. Haeckel has
a worldwide reputation, and it will be generally con-
ceded that this, probably his last great work, is a
supreme and masterly effort. Price, paper, 30 cents.
LAST LINK IN EVOLUTION
By Ernst Haeckel. (Tract.) 4 cents. A summary of
Ernst Hackel's address on the immediate ancestors
of man.
THE TRUTH SEEKER, 62 Vesey St., N.Y.
3 9015 00263. 1292