or identity depend upon genetic succession, is begging the principle and taking for granted what in reality is under discussion. It is true that animals of the same species are fertile among themselves, and that their fecundity is an easy test of this natural relation; but this character is not exclusive, since we know that the horse and the ass, the buffalo and our cattle, like many other animals may be crossed; we are, therefore, not justified, in doubtful cases, in considering the fertility of two animals as decisive of their specific identity. More over, generation is not the only way in which certain animals may multiply, as there are entire classes in which the larger number of individuals do not originate from eggs. Any definition of species in which the question of generation is introduced is, therefore, objectionable. The assumption, that the fertility of cross-breeds is necessarily limited to one or two generations, does not alter the case; since, in many instances, it is not proved beyond dispute. It is, however, beyond all question that individuals of distinct species may, in certain cases, be productive with one another, as well as with their own kind. It is equally certain that their offspring is a half-breed; that is to say, a being partaking of the peculiarities of the two parents, and not identical with either. The only definition of species meeting all these difficulties is that of Dr Morton, who characterizes them as primordial organic forms. Species are thus distinct forms of organic life, the origin of which is lost in the primitive establishment of the state of things now existing, and varieties are such modifications of the species as may return to the typical form, under temporary influences. Accepting this definition with the qualifications just mentioned respecting hybridity, I am prepared to show that the differences existing between the races of men are of the same kind as the differences observed between the different families, genera, and species of monkeys or other animals; and that these different species of animals differ in the same degree one from the other as the races of men-nay, the differences between distinct races are often greater than those distinguishing species of animals one from the other. The chimpanzee and gorilla do not differ more one from the other than the Mandingo and the Guinea Negro: they together do not differ more from the orang than the Malay or white man differs from the Negro. In proof of this assertion, I need only refer the reader to the description of the anthropoid monkeys published by Prof. Owen and by Dr J. Wyman, and to such descriptions of the races of men as notice more important peculiarities than the mere differences in the colour of the skin. It is, however, but fair to exonerate these authors from the responsibility of any deduction I would draw from a renewed examination of the same facts, differing from theirs; for I maintain distinctly that the differences observed among the races of men are of the same kind and even greater than those upon which the anthropoid monkeys are considered as distinct species. "Again, nobody can deny that the offspring of different races is always a halfbreed, as between animals of different species, and not a child like either its mother or its father. These conclusions in no way conflict with the idea of the unity of mankind, which is as close as that of the members of any well-marked type of animals; and whosoever will consult history must remain satisfied, that the moral question of brotherhood among men is not any more affected by these views than the direct obligations between immediate blood relations. Unity is determinal by a typical structure, and by the similarity of natural abilities and propensities; and, unless we deny the typical relations of the cat tribe, for instance, we must admit that unity is not only compatible with diversity of origin, but that it is the universal law of nature.

"This coincidence, between the circumscription of the races of man and the natural limits of different zoological provinces characterized by peculiar distinct species of animals, is one of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History of Mankind, which the study of the geographical distribution of all the organized beings, now existing upon earth, has disclosed to us. It is a fact which cannot fail to throw light, at some future time, upon the very origin of the differences existing among men, since it shows that

man's physical nature is modified by the same laws as that of animals, and that any general results obtained from the animal kingdom regarding the organic differences of its various types must also apply to man. "Now, there are only two alternatives before us at present :

"1st. Either mankind originated from a common stock, and all the different races with their peculiarities, in their present distribution, are to be ascribed to subsequent changes-an assumption for which there is no evidence whatever, and which leads at once to the admission that the diversity among animals is not an original one, nor their distribution determined by a general plan, established in the beginning of the Creation; or,

66

2d, We must acknowledge that the diversity among animals is a fact determined by the will of the Creator, and their geographical distribution part of the general plan which unites all organized beings into one great organic conception: whence it follows that what are called human races, down to their specialization as nations, are distinct primordial forms of the type of man.

"The consequences of the first alternative, which is contrary to all the modern results of science, run inevitably into the Lamarkian development theory, so well known in this country through the work entitled 'Vestiges of Creation ;' though its premises are generally adopted by those who would shrink from the conclusions to which they necessarily lead.

"Whatever be the meaning of the coincidence alluded to above, it must in future remain an important element in ethnographical studies; and no theory of the distribution of the races of man, and of their migrations, can be satisfactory hereafter, which does not account for that fact.

"We may, however, draw already an important inference from this investigation, which cannot fail to have its influence upon the farther study of the human races namely, that the laws which regulate the diversity of animals, and their distribution upon earth, apply equally to man, within the same limits and in the same degree; and that all our liberty and moral responsibility, however spontaneous, are yet instinctively directed by the All-wise and Omnipotent, to fulfil the great harmonies established in nature."-Gliddon and Nott.

Mr Hugh Miller, in reviewing "Smyth's History of the Human Races," thus alludes to the Agassizian theory :

HUGH MILLER ON AGASSIZ.

"The analogies may be on the side of the naturalist-as M. Agassiz says they are-and he may be quite right in holding, that varieties of the race so extreme as that of the negro on the one side, and the blue-eyed, fair-haired, diaphanous Goth on the other, could not have originated naturally in a species possessed of a common origin, during the brief period limited by authentic history on the one hand, and the first beginnings of a family so recent as that of man on the other. But, though he may possibly be right as a naturalistthough we think that matter admits of being tried, for it is far from settledhe may be none the less wrong on that account as a theologian. His inferences may be right and legitimate in themselves, and yet the main deduction founded upon them be false in fact. Let us illustrate. There is nothing more certain than that the human species is of comparatively recent origin. All geological science testifies that man is but of yesterday; and the profound yet exquisitely simple argument of Sir Isaac Newton, as reported by Mr Conduit, bears with singular effect on the same truth. Almost all the great discoveries and inventions, argued the philosopher, are of comparatively recent origin: perhaps the only great invention or discovery that occurs in the fabulous ages of history is the invention of letters; all the others--such as the mariner's compass, printing, gunpowder, the telescope, the discovery of the New World and Southern Africa, and of the true position and relations of the

NEW SERIES.-NO. IV. APRIL 1855.

3 A

And the

the

earth in the solar system-lie within the province of the authentic annalist which, man being the inquisitive, constructive creature that he is, would not be the case were the species of any very high antiquity. We have seen since the death of Sir Isaac, steam, gas, and electricity, introduced as new forces into the world; the race, in consequence, has, in less than a century and a half, grown greatly in knowledge and in power; and, by the rapid rate of the increase, we argue with the philosopher, that it can by no means be very ancient ;-had it been on the earth twenty, fifty, or a hundred thousand years ago, steam, gas, and electricity, would have been discovered hundreds of ages since, and it would at this date have no such room to grow. only very ancient history which has a claim to be authentic-that of Mosesconfirms, we find, the shrewd inference. Now, with this fact of the recent origin of the race on the one hand, and the other fact, that the many various languages of the race so differ, that there are some of them which have scarce a dozen of words in common, a linguist, who confined himself to the consideration of natural causes, would be quite justified in arguing that these languages could not possibly have changed to be what they are, from any such tongue, in the some five or six thousand years to which he finds himself restricted by history, geology, and the inferences of Sir Isaac. It takes many centuries thoroughly to change a language, even in the present state of things. in which divers languages exist, and in which commerce, and conquest, and the demands of literature, are ever incorporating the vocables of one people with those of another. After the lapse of nearly three thousand years, language of modern Greece is essentially that in which Homer wrote; and by much the larger part of the words in which we ourselves express our ideas, are those which Alfred employed when he propounded his scheme of legislative assemblies and of trial by jury. And were there but one language on earth changes in words or structure would of necessity operate incalculably more slowly. Nor would it be illogical for the linguist to argue, that if, some five or six thousand years ago, the race, then in their extreme infancy, had not a common language, they could not have originated as one family, but as several, and so his conclusion would in effect be that of the American naturalists. But who does not see that, though right as a linguist, he would be wrong as a theologian-wrong in fact? Reasoning on but the common and the natural, he would have failed to take into account, in his calculation, one main element -the element of miracle, as manifested in the confusion of tongues at Babel; and his ultimate finding would in consequence be wholly erroneous. Now, it is perhaps equally possible for the naturalist to hold that two such extreme varieties of the human family as the negro and the Goth could not have originated from common parents in the course of a few centuries-and certainly the negro does appear in history not many centuries after the Flood. He had assumed his deep black hue six hundred years before the Christian era, when Jeremiah used his well-known illustration, "Can the Ethiopian," etc.; and the negro head and features appear among the sculptures and paintings of Egypt several centuries earlier. Nay, negro skulls of a very high antiquity have been found among the mummies of the same ancient kingdom. But though, with distinguished naturalists on the other side, we would not venture authoritatively to determine that a variety so extreme could have originated in the ordinary course of nature in so brief a period, just as we would hesitate to determine that a new language could originate naturally in other than a very extended term, we would found little indeed upon such a circumstance, in the face of a general tradition that the negroid form and physiognomy were marks set upon an offending family, and scarce were less the results of miracle than the confusion of tongues. We are far from sure, however, that it is necessary to have recourse to miracle. The Goth is widely removed from the negro; but there are intermediate types of man that stand in such a midway relation to both, that each variety, taking these as the central type, is divested of half its extremeness.

"We had purposed referring at some length to that portion of the argument which is made to rest on analogy. We have, however, more than exhausted our space; and merely remark, that it is not at all a settled point that the analogies are in favour of creation in a plurality of centres. Linnæus, and his followers in the past, and men such as Edward Forbes in the present, assert exactly the contrary; and, though the question is, doubtless, an obscure and difficult one-so much so, that he who takes up either side, and incurs the onus probandi of what he asserts, will find he has but a doubtful case—the doubt and obscurity lie quite as much on the one side as the other. Even, however, were the analogies with regard to vegetables and the lower animals in favour of creation in various centres, it would utterly fail to affect the argument. Though the dormouse and the Scotch fir had been created in fifty places at once, the fact would not yield us the slightest foundation for inferring that inan had originated in more than a single centre. Ultimately, controversies of this character will not fail to be productive of good. They will leave the truth more firmly established, because more thoroughly tried, and the churches more learned. Nay, should such a controversy as the present at length convince the churches that those physical and natural sciences which, during the present century, have been changing the very face of the world and the entire region of human thought, must be sedulously studied by them, and that they can no more remain ignorant without sin than a shepherd can remain unarmed in a country infested by beasts of prey, without breach of trust, it will be productive of much greater good than harm."

On such a subject the opinions of Dr Pye Smith, who was justly esteemed both as a naturalist and a divine, will be consulted with interest. And, accordingly, we find him quoted in the Scotsman newspaper as supporting Agassiz:

OPINION OF DR PYE SMITH.

"It would be wrong,' says Dr Smith, to conceal the difficulties with which the subject is surrounded, however satisfied we may be with the evidence in favour of the descent of all mankind from one original pair of ancestors;' and he then quotes a targum, or old Jewish paraphrase, of Gen. ii. 7, in which it is explained that God created man red, black, and white.

"Dr Smith admits that the action of the solar light and heat in tropical climates only produces various shades of brown, but we have no instance of a white family or community acquiring the proper negro colour;' nor of a negro family becoming of a healthy European white, except by intermarriages. This permanence of the white and black complexions suggests another difficulty. The recent explorings,' he observes, of the Egyptian tombs and temples have brought to light pictures of native Egyptians, and of men and women of other nations, comprising negroes, who are distinguished by their characteristic form of face, and their completely black colour. Some of these highly interesting representations are proved to be of the age of Joseph, and earlier, and some in which the negro figures occur are of the eighth century after the Flood. Assuming, then, that the complexion of Noah's family was what I have ventured to suppose as the normal brown, there was not time for a negro race to be produced by the operation of all the causes of change with which we are acquainted.' Who, indeed, will believe that a Spaniard transplanted to Guinea would become a negro in twenty-four generations? The force of the objection is vastly increased when we refer to the history of the Berbers, Tibboos, and Tuaricks, all speaking the same radical language, and spread over the oases of the Sahara, from Morocco to Egypt, who have lived under the same burning sun with the blacks since the time of Herodotus (2300 years), and are only brown-no more negroes than the Moors or Egyptians. "Adam might be the first created man, the protoplast of the race, a fair representative of all its qualities, without being literally the father of all man

kind. Mr Edward King, a zealous Christian,' says Dr Smith, 'strenuously maintained the opinion of the plurality of human ancestry.' The illustrious Dr Arnold of Rugby also held that the physiological question was not settled. Nor can we affirm it to be an impossibility that the Almighty Creator should have seen fit to bring originally into being duplicates, triplicates, or other multiples of pairs, formed so alike that there should be no specific dif ference between them.' In a word, that they should be capable of perfect amalgamation.

"With regard to Acts xvii. 26, it cannot be proved that one blood' necessarily signifies descent from a common ancestry; for, admitting a specific iden tity, though having proceeded from distinct foci of creation, both the physical and mental characteristics would be the same in all essential qualities.'

"But if we carry our concessions to the very last point-if the progress of investigation should indeed bring out such kinds and degrees of evidence as shall rightfully turn the scale in favour of the hypothesis that there are several races of mankind, each having originated in a different pair of ancestors-what would be the consequence to our highest interests, as rational, accountable, and immortal beings? Would our faith, the fountain of motives for love and obedience to Go 1, virtuous self-government, and universal justice and kindness— would this faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,' sustain any detriment, after, by due ineditation and prayer, we had surmounted the first shock? Let us survey those consequences.

"If the two first inhabitants of Eden were the progenitors, not of all human beings, but only of the race whence sprung the Hebrew family, still it would remain the fact, that all were formed by the immediate power of God, and all their circumstances, stated or implied in the Scriptures, would remain the same as to moral and practical purposes.

"Adam would be " a figure of Him that was to come," the Saviour of mankind; just as Melchizedek, or Moses, or Aaron, or David; the spiritual lesson will be the same.

"The sinful character of all the tribes of men, and the individuals composing them, would remain determined by the most abundant and painfully demonstrated proofs, in the history of all times and nations. The way and manner in which moral corruption has thus infected all men, under their several heads of primeval ancestry, would be an inscrutable mystery (which it is now); but the need of divine mercy, and the duty to seek it, would be the same; the same necessity would exist of a Saviour, a redemption, and a renovation of the internal character by efficacious grace.

"That the Saviour was, in his human nature, a descendant of Adam, would not militate against his being a proper Redeemer for all the races of mankind, any more than his being a descendant of Abraham, Judah, and David, at all diminishes his perfection to save us, " sinners of the Gentiles."

"Some difficulties in the Scripture-history would be taken away; such as -the sons of Adam obtaining wives not their own sisters;-Cain's acquiring instruments of husbandry, which must have been furnished by miracle immediately from God upon the usual supposition ;-his apprehensions of summary punishment ("any man that findeth me will slay me");-his fleeing into another region, of which Josephus so understands the text, as to affirm that Cain obtained confederates, and became a plunderer and robber, implying the existence of a population beyond his own family;—and his building a "city," a considerable collection of habitations.

"Thus, if, contrarily to all reasonable probability, this great question should ever be determined in the way opposite to what we now think the verdict of truth, the highest interests of man will not be affected.'"

This seems distinct enough, and yet in a note to Dr Smyth of Charleston, Dr Pye Smith apparently takes an opposite view. He writes in reference to the treatise of that gentleman as follows:

"This work of the Rev. Dr Smyth I have perused with much satisfaction.