as to make the appearance and preservation of a species or genus at any time dependent on so slight a thing as the existence of a single human life." But he adds himself that this reason, which seems to him to be "almost the only point on this subject admitting of discussion, only rests on a teleological, not on a physical or physiological observation, and that its importance must not be over-estimated."

More weight must be attached to an objection thus stated by Vogt. Whoever believes in the Bible must believe in the whole Bible. Whoever believes Adam to be the one father of the human race must admit the same of Noah, who with his three sons remained alone after the Deluge on the earth. But what wonderful productiveness must have been inherent in the three tribes of Shem, Ham, and Japhet to produce, in a period of 500 years at the most, millions of descendants in Egypt alone; while the monuments of Khorsahad, Nineveh, etc., also bear witness to the existence of very large nations who peopled Asia immediately (i.e. some centuries) after the Flood. Even mice and rabbits would despair of a similar increase in their descendants in so short a time." In my next lecture I shall consider whether the time which has elapsed since the Deluge is really so short as Vogt here supposes. But even if this were the case it would not afford ground for an

1 Anthropol. i. 226. See also J. Grimm's Ueberlegung; Gesch. der deutschen sprache, p. 22 (Perty, Grundzüge, p. 17). "It is probable that more than one pair was created, if only because the first mother might possibly have given birth to sons or to daughters only, which would have put a stop to all further reproduction; and also because it would prevent an intermarriage of brothers and sisters, which nature abhors." On this last question see below, p. 245.

Köhlerglaube, etc. p. 80.

VOL. II.

Q

argument against the descent of mankind from one pair. If between the ages of twenty-five and fifty human pair were on an average to give birth to six children, the number of men existing 450 years after the Deluge might have been 800 million souls, that is, almost as many as are supposed to exist now. The numbers do not increase in such a ratio now no doubt in any country; they need not have increased in this ratio in the earliest times, but they probably increased much faster than they do now. Nor is it incredible that there is now no great general increase in the number of mankind, because the number of inhabitants which the earth is able or intended to support has been reached; but that, on the contrary, so long as this number was not reached, the increase was more rapid and uninterrupted.' If we suppose that a yearly increase of only 2 per cent. took place, and a similar increase takes place even now under favourable conditions in thinly populated countries, 500 years after the Deluge 106 million people might have existed; and if an increase of 3 per cent. took place, 180 million might have existed. We find instances of a similar rapid increase in modern times. At the end of the last century a few English sailors and a few natives of Tahiti settled on an island in the Pacific. In the year 1800 there were nineteen children, one man, and some women; in 1855, although several had died through unlooked for occurrences, there were 187 persons: this is an increase of more than 3 per cent. It is said that on an island which

2

1 A. Wagner, Gesch. der Urwelt, ii. 278. Pfaff, Schöpfungsgeschichte, p. F. v. Rougemont, Der Urmensch, Berlin 1870, p. 15.

661.

2 Natur und Offenbarung, iii. 69.

was first inhabited in 1589 by some shipwrecked English, and was visited in 1667 by a Dutch ship, a population of 12,000 souls was found, all the descendants of four mothers. Acosta in describing the natural history of New Spain 100 years after its discovery, says that even before his time it was not uncommon for people to possess from 70,000 to 100,000 sheep; and yet before the country was discovered by the Spaniards there were no sheep there, and the whole race was descended from those which had been brought by the Spaniards. It is well known also that horses and cattle have only existed in America since its discovery by Columbus; they are now found there in countless numbers in both a tame and a wild condition. Acosta speaks of numerous wild herds of cattle which wandered about the island of Hispaniola, and which afforded sport for the chase; in 1585, 35,000 were exported from this island, and 64,000 from New Spain. From Paraguay and New Spain alone one million ox hides were exported every year at the end of the last century; yet the numerous cattle in these regions are descended from seven cows and one bull which were left there in 1546. If these animals could multiply to such an extent in a comparatively short space of time, in spite of the depredations of men and wild beasts, why should not the human race have multiplied in a like degree, under more favourable conditions and in a longer period?1

It cannot therefore be proved that the descent of mankind from one pair is impossible, and here again

1 Wiseman, On the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion, p. 237. A. Wagner, ii. 280.

there is no contradiction between revelation and science. Is it the conviction that his scientific arguments are untenable that induces Vogt to number himself amongst exegetes, and to "extract" from the Bible itself the real reason for the differences between the races of mankind which are distributed over the

earth? "After Abel's murder," he says,' "the murderer Cain was Adam's only progeny; for Seth and the other sons and daughters mentioned in Genesis were not born at that time. In spite of this we are told Cain took his wife with him in his flight and founded a town, after a mark had been placed on his forehead so that no one should kill him. This sign could only have been meant for man; for the wolf eats the marked sheep." It is very easy to explain this misunderstanding. Genesis only gives us a few fragmentary notices of primitive history, and we find facts placed close together in the narrative which chronologically are a long way apart. Therefore although it is stated in Gen. iv. 17 that "Cain knew his wife; and she conceived and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch," the time of his brother's murder and the flight of Cain, and the time of the foundation of the first city are not given, and may be separated by centuries. Vogt has invented the fact that Cain founded the city at once. The wife of Cain was either one of the daughters of Adam who followed him into banishment, — for Genesis does not say that Adam had at that time no children except Cain,-or one of his sisters who was born after Seth, or one of his nieces. S. Augus

1 Vorlesungen, ii. 225. Cf. Quenstedt, Sonst und Zetzt, p. 254.

tine' declared that the marriage with a sister which has been such a stumbling-block to K. Hase, J. Grimm, and others, was inevitable in the first age if mankind is descended from one pair. We must not conclude from Cain's saying when he is flying from the land of Eden (Gen. iv. 14), "Every one that findeth me shall slay me," that he supposed that other countries were also inhabited. He seems rather to refer to the vengeance which he fears if his father's family should spread. But if he fears to be recognised as the murderer outside Eden, that shows that there was only one human family, the family of Adam, and that no other existed which was not connected with it.2

1 Civ. Dei, xv. 16.

2 Delitzsch, Genesis, p. 169.