how came the races to separate into distinct masses at the very earliest known period, and either voluntarily, or by force, take up distinct geographical abodes? If God made all men of one species,-a universal brotherhood,-how came this prejudice, a mere human impulse, to have sufficient power to counteract His design,-that they should fraternise as members of one family? Where is there another instance in which man has possessed the power to overrule God's providence, for so long a period, so effectually, and universally, in regard to the mass of mankind? That a man, or a nation, as individuals, may, for a comparatively short period, violate the natural law of God, is most certain. That large masses may violate the moral law is also certain. But a violation of a natural law must be temporary, because the punishment follows so closely, and is so precisely proportioned to the violation, that the criminal is constrained to return to his duty; and a violation of the moral law, if not so immediately punished, and so quickly restrained, receives its reward in this world, as well as the next. The sexual relations,the laws relating to sexual love,—are laws of our nature. Modified they may be, by the progress of civilization, but never fundamentally altered. If they have been altered at all, were they not altered before civilization had produced any differences in the races?

What then becomes of the universal brotherhood of man, if by brotherhood is to be understood a unity of species, a natural right of fraternity, a community of right, privileges, and powers? If by frater

nity, it is only designed to express the obligation of each species, and of every individual of each race, to promote the happiness, welfare, and prosperity, of every other race, it is readily and freely conceded. But the question we are discussing is not the nature and extent of the moral obligation of man to man, but the zoological question of species, or varieties; for after all, it is a mere question of species or permanent varieties. What is the moral difference between them? How is benevolence, philanthropy, concerned in the decision of this question? Most assuredly in having it determined correctly, according to the natural principles which the Creator established; for the path of human duty must always be in harmony with His laws, and the first requisite is to understand them.

We expect to prove by the following pages-That the whole subject of the Natural History of Man, as it regards one or several species, is not forbidden by Scripture, but is as much open for discussion, and investigation, as the natural history of any animal.

That the Zoological classification of man, by his animal properties, excluding his psychical attributes, is unphilosophical.

That there are at least four distinct species of men in the world, proved by their physical and psychical properties and powers.

That although there were several centres of distribution, or creation of animals and vegetables, every known fact proves an original single centre of distribution, or creation, of man, in Asia, in the neighborhood, of the Euphrates.

That the progressive development and improvement of the human species in morals and intellect, are laws of human nature, the equivalent of the series of creations antecedent to Man.

That the differences in the races of men cannot be accounted for by climate, mode of living, or any natural causes now in operation, or which have been in operation within the period of history.

That they cannot be accounted for by accidental, or congenital varieties springing up in the human family.

That there is no analogy between man and animals which can assist us to classify man, or to understand his history.

That the principles of zoology, if applied to man in the same manner they are applied to animals, establish specific differences among men.

That the Anatomical and Physiological differences of the races of men establish specific differences.

That the Psychical attributes of man, in every point of view in which they can be considered, constitute specific differences.

That the history and condition of women in the different races establish specific differences.

And lastly-That the natural law of sexual love, by which the races have been kept distinct from time immemorial, establish a distinction of species.

It must be evident to the reflecting mind, from the above enumeration, that the space to be travelled over is vast, and the objects to be exhibited rich and varied. Although specific differences appear, on the face of the statement, to be objects of primary

importance, they are, in fact, subordinate to the general Psychical, Sexual, Anatomical, and Physiological, History of Man, from the earliest to the latest period. We enter on the subject with diffidence; but not without the hope of placing it in such a light, that some more gifted men may be induced to do it justice.

CHAPTER II.

THE INVESTIGATION OF THE NATURAL HISTORY OF MAN IN REGARD TO ONE, OR MANY SPECIES, IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY SCRIPTURE.

WHEN the Church of Rome usurped the authority of keeping the consciences of men, and also usurped civil power to enforce her claim over the Christian world, she could easily suppress philosophical speculations which she thought heretical in doctrine, or adverse to her own principles or power. Happily her day has passed. The only restraints now imposed upon men, in the fullest and freest discussion of any subject, are public opinion, and conscience. We have no hesitation in saying that the revolution, which, humanly speaking, placed the safe keeping of religion in these last, instead of the Pope, has made a more secure deposit for the true interest of the Church, as well as for the best interests of man. In all that a man does, whether as an investigator of any of the sciences, or in the more humble pursuits of private life, he is responsible to these tribunals; but if he should aim at influencing public opinion, he should feel a higher responsibility, in proportion to the importance of the subject, than if his opinions and conduct were limited to his own social circle.