these families; and the northern nations of Europe differ quite as permanently from the southern, as the Caucasian does from the Mongolian, and the tribes of Southern Africa are distinguished quite as much from the tribes north of the equator, and immediately around it, as the Negro himself is from the Caucasian. It is easy to distinguish an Englishman from a Frenchman, a Spaniard from a German, &c. Now, if the varieties manifested by the two or three great families of mankind, compel us to trace them to two or three different origins, why will not the differences equally ineradicable between infinitely numerous tribes, point also in each case to a different origin? The difficulty has been felt, and Professor Agassiz, the ablest representative of the above school, concludes that mankind have not sprung from a single pair, nor from separate pairs created at different centres; but have originated in groups, in various countries -in other words, have been sown broadcast over the world. To this inference he is also helped by the analogous distribution of vegetable and animal life. In countries entirely isolated from the old world, such as Australia, the fauna and flora are entirely different; the plants are of a different specific and generic character; the animals are also entirely distinct. In countries less isolated, there is more resemblance, without absolute identity, however, in any. The fauna of Europe, possessing the same specific type as those in America, present, however, varieties at once recognizable to the eye of the practised naturalist; when the geographical limits become more closely united, the resemblance becomes much greater, yet never amounting to identity.

Here it is to be observed that every species in one country has its representative species in another, and sometimes under circumstances, too, which forbid the supposition that they have been propagated from a common source.

We

find the same general facts to be applicable to man; and the representative species of the human family nearly alike, but not absolutely identical, are scattered over the world. From this it is inferred that, as the representative species of the animal creation could not have descended from a common origin, neither could the representative species of the human

race.

This argument will strike different minds with different degrees of force;

most, however, will only see in it the admirable adaptation of the animal world to the circumstances among which they are placed, and the provisions made for their preservation amid the most diverse influences. Professor Guyot well remarks, "The resemblance of organized beings in the three continents of the north, is one of their distinctive characters; and this character is due to circumstance, that in proportion as the species change with the longitude, their place is taken generally, not by new types, but by analogous species. Doubtless, the similarity of climate is one of the most active causes of this resemblance; for the variety of the genera, the differences between the species of the three continents augment according to the elevation of the temperature; but this is not enough to explain the fact entirely. We shall see that the continents of the south, under similar latitudes, and in similar temperatures, offer types of animals, and of vegetation, very different in each of them.

"The continents of the south are more remote from each other than the fore

going. Broad oceans separate them, even to isolation. Scarcely any communication is possible between lands so distant; at any rate it is only indirect. Shut up in themselves, incapable of acting upon one another and modifying their respective natures, these continents are excluded from all community of life. What is there astonishing, then, in seeing their differences carried to an extreme, their characters exaggerated?

We see here only the most natural adaptation of animal life to the geographical latitude, and the fact that in different climates, the external characters are somewhat differently developed. Admitting, however, as true, every thing which Professor Agassiz wishes to prove, with regard to the animal creation: the difficulty still remains of showing that the same law of development applies to the human species. A mere analogy which evidently holds good only up to a certain point, cannot to any reasonable mind be conclusive. You may, from the development of the animal creation, argue with regard to the development of man in his animal nature; but when he is considered in his highest and most important relations, as a moral, intellectual, and responsible being, the analogy at once fails, and the law of development would in consequence, we infer, be quite dif

ferent. And such is the fact; for, as we before remarked, the animal and vegetable creations assume higher and more perfect types as you proceed from the poles to the equator; while, on the contrary, man is found in his most degraded position in the tropics, and becomes gradually more elevated as he approaches the temperate zone, in which he reaches his highest development, physical, intellectual and moral. The development of the animal follows only a physical law, while man being a moral as well as material being, is governed by both the laws of the physical and moral world.

The distinction has been well drawn by Professor Guyot. "In the animal," he remarks, "the degree of perfection of the types is proportional to the intensity of heat, and of other agents which stimulate the display of material life. The law is of a physical order.

"In man, the degree of perfection of the types is in proportion to the degree of moral and intellectual improvement. The law is of a moral order.

The

"The difference between the laws has its principle in the profound difference existing between the nature and destination of these distinct beings. plant and the animal are not required to become a different thing from what they already are at the moment of their birth. Their idea, as the philosopher would say, is realized in its fulness, by the fact alone of their material appearance, and of their physical organization. The end of their existence is attained, for they are only of a physical nature. But with man it is quite otherwise. Man, created in the image of God, is of a free and moral nature. The physical man, however admirable may be his organization, is not the true man; he is not an aim, but a means; he is not an end, like the animal, but a beginning. There is another, new-born, but destined to grow up in him, and to unfold the moral and religious nature until he attain the perfect stature of his master, and pattern, which is Christ. It is the intellectual and moral man, the spiritual man. The law of development, if I may say so, is the law of man, the law of the human race and human societies; now, the free and moral being cannot unfold his nature without education; he cannot grow to maturity, except by the exercise of the faculties he has reIceived as his inheritance. Here is the reason that the Creator has placed the

cradle of mankind in the midst of the continents of the north, so well made by their forms, their structure, by their climate, as we shall soon see, to stimulate individual development, and that of human society, and not at the centre of the tropical regions, whose balmy, but enervating and treacherous atmosphere would have, perhaps, lulled him to sleep the sleep of death, in his very cradle."

To us, then, it appears incontrovertible, that the frail argument from analogy, even where analogy is inadmissible, fails entirely in the most important points.

2. It is maintained that no race of mankind has changed within the historic period: that the Gaul, the Saxon, &c., present the same conformation, and possess the same qualities now, that they did when first known to history; and that even the monumental remains of Egypt, which date back beyond 3000 years, exhibit to us the Negro, the Copt, and the Jew, with precisely the same physiognomy which they retain at the present day. If, at so early a day, we find races possessed of the same character they now exhibit, and if the lapse of centuries has not been able to change them in any important particular, what evidence have we that they can change at all? Does not the inference appear to be that they are unchangeable. It is not pretended I believe by any one that all the causes which operated in producing permanent varieties in the human species have been discovered; some of the causes, however, which are universally admitted as influential in modifying the human form and color, are climate, food, habits, and education; these being unchanged, man, as far as we know-indeed, the. supposition is confirmed by experience,— would remain unchanged. Time itself, without the influence of these modifying laws, could never produce any impression on the human person. It is not surprising, then, nor contradictory of any law recognized by the advocate of the unity of the human race, that the Negro, the Copt, and the Jew, should present nearly the same appearance now, that they did three thousand years ago. The Copt and the Negro live on the same soil and subject to the same influences, climatic and otherwise, that they were then; the Jew, though changing his climate, has not changed his habits, has not amalgamated

with other nations, observes the same regimen, and pursues the same avocations now that he ever did. The only change, then, which he has undergone in entire conformity with physiological laws, is that of color, while the physiognomy, influenced only by food, and habits, and education, remains unchanged. But the assertion that man does not change when climate, food, moral and intellectual habits are changed, is contrary to well established facts. The Jew, occupying for several centuries the coast of Malabar, has become black as a Negro. The Brahmins, evidently descended from the same conquering race, differ in complexion according to the latitude they occupy in the immense country of Hindostan. The Turk in Europe has partially assumed the Caucasian cast of countenance, whilst in Western Asia he inclines towards the Mongolian.

The

Celtic nations, whom it would be the merest quixotism of criticism to deny to have sprung from the same race, possess very different characteristics; the Irishman is unlike the Frenchman and the Scotchman differs materially from both. Perhaps there can be no two nations more directly the antipodes of one another in mental and moral habits, than the Irish and Scotch; and there is scarcely any historical fact more certain, than that they are descendants from a common stock. The Saxon is different in almost every important aspect from the Dutch who now inhabit the country from which he formerly emigrated; and since transplanted into Ireland has superadded to the parent stock some of the qualities of the soil, and is generally considered to be a more genial, impulsive character than his brethren on the other side of the Channel; and what is more obvious to us, is that the American is assuming a physiognomy of his own; it is not that of any of the races from which he is sprung, nor is it identical with that of the offspring of those races born in Europe, but it is something peculiar and national.

History, then, and the most positive experience, prove that varieties have been produced, within the historic period, in families descended from the same race; it is, we think, then, the most gratuitous hypothesis to maintain that, because there are a few instances of permanency of type, during the historic period, there are, therefore, no variations at all from the original typical stock. This is

simply a question of facts; and, in my opinion, none has been more completely and triumphantly settled.

The question has been asked, however, how is it, that if races possess the capabilities of change, they never re-assume the original type, and that the negro, after being exposed for centuries to the climate of America, shows no signs of becoming white? As we said before, all the circumstances which govern the development of the human race, are not known; but, from a wide induction of facts, the law has been discovered, that, in the infancy of the human race, when the nature of man was plastic, he received, from the action of the circumstances among which he was placed, an impression which determined his conformation for ever; or, in the more scientific language of Lyell, whose opinions are entitled to the highest respect, human development is governed by the following laws:

"1st. All species have a capacity, to a certain extent, of adapting themselves to external circumstances.

"2d. When the change of situation they can endure is great, it is usually attended with some modification of the form, color, size, and other particulars; but the mutations thus superinduced are governed by constant laws; and the capability of so varying forms a part of the permanent specific character.

"3d. Some acquired qualities are transmissable, &c.

"4th. The entire variation from the original type which any given kind of change can nake, must usually take place in a very short space of time, after which no further variation can be attained by continuing to alter the circumstances, though ever so gradually; indefinite divergence, either in the way of deterioration or improvement, being prevented; and the least excess beyond the defined limits being fatal to the existence of the individual."

It may be objected, that this is simply theory; this is true, but it is a theory evolved from a very wide induction of facts, and has the recommendation of harmonizing all the circumstances known, with regard to human development; while opposing opinions, which are theories too, run singularly counter both to facts and experience. In this connection we cannot avoid noticing the remarkable theory of Dr. Knox, that races can never change, and never amalgamate or emnigrate without extinction; in other

words, that the typical character and location of a race, are so inseparably connected with its well-being, that neither can be changed without extinction. On the subject of variations of the human race, we have before remarked; and the connection between migration and extinction will be apparent to very few but the doctor, himself. Most of the nations of Europe have migrated to their present locations during the historic period, and have been, pretty generally, adulterated with a foreign element, which it is, I believe, generally admitted, has contributed to their improvement. The American nation is certainly derived from a great many different stocks, without any signs of degeneracy. The attempt to account for this anomaly, by pointing to the constant accessions made to the population from the parent stocks, manifests extraordinary ignorance of the true state of the case. Europeans and their immediate descendants are liable, in the process of acclimation, to many more diseases than the native American, and, consequently, exhibit a much greater mortality. The fact is, that the longer a family has been in the country, the greater is its immunity from disease, and the more does it multiply; whilst the least healthy, and the most subject to mortality, is the European. We are not certain that this is the case in all the British Colonies; we are pretty sure it is in Canada, and incline to the belief it is in all countries in the temperate zone. Man does, then, not only survive the shock given to his system by the action of a strange climate, and, by the addition of certain peculiarities, but is very frequently improved by the process.

3. It has been stated that as you ascend the stream of history, there is no more trace of unity among the human race than at the present time; but you find the species broken into divisions still more fragmentary. Where you now have nations, you formerly had tribes; and mankind, instead of converging towards a point, as you trace them back towards their origin, are found to diverge still more hopelessly, rendering the search after unity absolutely desperate.

It is doubtless a fact, that the first form of human associations known to history were tribes; and that the first form of government was patriarchal. But to identify societies with race, is to confound things totally distinct. At the present day, a nation is by no means coextensive with a race, for several king

doms are peopled by members of the same great family. Witness the Celtic race scattered over France, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland; the Sclavonic occupying all the East of Europe, and the German split up into innumerable petty nationalities. It is impossible then from the social subdivisions of mankind to infer anything, as to their diversity of origin; and this is more especially the case, when we are discussing the primitive state of society.

The first form of government, as we have just said, was patriarchal; the oldest of the family was generally the leader of the tribe; this was simply an extension of the family relation, and continued until rendered impracticable by the multiplication of the people. The sovereignty was then confined to a single family, and by slow degrees assumed all the various modifications, which we at present find in society. Besides this very natural order in the development of government, the subdivision into tribes was necessitated by the pursuits of primitive man. The first avocations of the race were pastoral, communities were thus formed not too large for acquiring subsistence, and not too small for self-defence. Every pastoral country presents the same condition of things. The Arab of the desert is a living embodiment of the social state in the same locality two thousand years ago. He lives in tribes, which are broken up when they become unwieldy or when internal dissensions arise, and which never after coalesce. Yet no one, I believe, has adduced the multiplicity of tribes as a proof of the plurality of stocks from which the Arab is descended. The clan system is, however, not confined to the East or to antiquity; it existed until a very recent period in the Highlands of Scotland, among a nation descended of course from a common stock.

To adduce, then, the multiplicity of tribes in ancient times, as inconsistent with the unity of the origin of the human race, is completely to misapprehend the state of the question.

The same remarks hold substantially good in reference to the argument drawn from diversity of language; if indeed, there be a radical diversity in language. Most philologists think not, and I believe most of the languages of Europe and western Asia have been traced to a common Semitic stem. So obvious was this connection to the most eminent scholars

of the last century, that the conveyance of all languages to a common origin, was to them conclusive of the unity of the human race. The opposers of this unity say they make no pretensions to philological research; seeing however, superficial differences in various languages, they are disposed to make the most of them.

If, however, a radical difference did exist between the various languages of the world, it would prove nothing against the unity of the race: it being obvious that families, confessedly of the same race, do not always use the same language. The Irish, Welsh, Gælic, and French are as different as most languages from one another, yet still are consistent with community of origin, on the part of the nations that use them. The South Sea Islanders have different languages, not only in the different groups, but in the several islands which compose these groups; and in the small Island of Tatua, not more than 80 miles in circumference, the inhabitants speak four different languages totally distinct from one another. Yet it would not sound very philosophical to assign different origins to the inhabitants of each of these islands. The truth is, that every indication which is at all valuable in antiquarian research, points invariably to migration of the race from a single centre: it is the deduction of science as well as the testimony of history and tradition. National vanity is, doubtless, gratified as in Greece, by referring to Autochthones, or aborigines, springing like grasshoppers from the soil; but this tradition is involved in the obscurity of remote antiquity, and is extremely indistinct in its outlines; and, after all, amounts only to the simple fact, that the first recorded emigrants to Greece found inhabitants there before them. The inability to determine when the first inhabitants settled there arises simply from the fact, that the emigration took place before the historic period. In opposition to this supposition of the first inhabitants of Greece springing from the soil, or being created on the spot, we have the unanimous testimony of antiquity in favor of the migration of the race from a spot somewhere in Northwestern Asia. The Brahmins, Chinese, and Assyrians too, represent the human family as descending from the highlands of Asia; streaming down the sides of the Hindoo Cosh, the Himalaya, and the Altai Mountains, and finally spreading over the adjoining plains to the con

fines of the ocean. The history, poetry, and legends of Europe, give precisely the same account of the settlement of that country; and all point to the mysterious, sacred East as the cradle of the human

race.

We are told, however, that we cannot rely much on the chronicles and traditions of a barbarous age. Yet we think, that a testimony given with such unanimity and universality might have some weight with gentlemen who attribute such a profound significancy to the Grecian tradition of men springing from the soil.

Our remarks have been extended to this point purposely without any reference to Scripture, because we do not think that the argument from Scripture would have much weight with the maintainers of the position we have been attempting to controvert. Scripture, it is asserted, was never given for the settling of physical and scientific questions, nor for any purpose, indeed, but the propagation of moral and religious truth. Be it so. But in the purpose of Scripture the origin of man is not developed as a simple ethnological question, but dwelt upon as the mode of accounting for the introduction of moral evil into the world, and its transmission through the different members of the human family down to the present time.

All orthodox Christians agree with St. Paul, in tracing the predisposition to evil in the human race, to one man's transgression, by whom sin entered into the world, and to our connection with him as our progenitor. Moral infirmity is part of the constitutional bias derived from our first parents, and only to be accounted for according to the theory of Scripture, by our intimate union with them by direct descent.

It may be, as it has been said, that St. Paul was deceived. To discuss this assertion, would be opening up a question entirely foreign to the object of this paper. Our remarks in this immediate connection are intended only for those who have some confidence in the teaching of St. Paul.

Apart, however, from the bearing of Scripture on the subject, the various converging arguments from science, history, and tradition, as well as the deeper moral consciousness of the race, are, we conceive, conclusive of the unity of mankind. Man instinctively recognizes man as his brother; the social instinct is paralyzed only when our better feelings