« PreviousContinue »
of the different races of men to different parts of the world must be intentional, as well as that of other beings; that men were primitively located in the various parts they inhabit; and that they arose everywhere in those harmonious numeric proportions with other living beings, which would at once secure their preservation, and contribute to their welfare. To suppose that all men originated from Adam and Eve is to assume that the order of creation has been changed in the course of historical times, and to give to the Mosaic record a meaning that it was never intended to have. On that ground we would particularly insist upon the propriety of considering Genesis as chiefly relating to the history of the white race, with special reference to the history of the Jews.”
Notwithstanding tht the learned professor thus denies the common descent of mankind from Adam and Eve, he still insists that the race is but of one species. He remarks, –
6. There are two distinct questions involved in the subject which we have under discussion - the Unity of Mankind, and the Diversity of Origin of the Human Races. These are two distinct questions, having almost no connection with each other ; but they are constantly confounded, as if they were but one.”* And again, “We began by stating that the subject of unity and plurality of races involves two distinct questions — the question of the essential unity of mankind, and the question of the origin
* Christ. Exam. July, 1850, p. 110.
of men upon our globe. There is another view 'involved in this second question, which we would not dismiss without a few remarks.
“ Are men, even if diversity of origin is established, to be considered as belonging to one species? or are we to conclude that there are several different species among them? The writer has been in this respect strangely misrepresented. Because he has at one time said that mankind constitutes one species, and at another time has said that men did not originate from one common stock, he has been represented as contradicting himself, as stating at one time one thing and at another time another. He would, therefore, insist upon this distinction — that the unity of species does not involve a unity of origin, and that a diversity of origin does not involve a plurality of species. Moreover, what we should now consider as the characteristic of species is something very different from what has formerly been so considered. As soon as it was ascertained that animals differ so widely, it was found that what constitutes a species in certain types is something very different from what constitutes a species in other types, and that facts which prove an identity of species in some animals do not prove an identity or plurality in another group.” (p. 113.)
Thus we see this distinguished naturalist holds to the doctrine of the unity of mankind, but with this he likewise maintains the plurality of origin ; a position which, according to the manner in which cer
tain matters in natural science have heretofore been viewed, is a strange one. But some others have adopted it; and they maintain the unity of the human races in such a way as to be consistent, in their own view, with the declaration of Paul, when he says, " He (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (Acts xvii. 26.) There is the actual relationship of consanguinity — all are made of one blood, although the different races are descended from different, distinct, primitive pairs, which were created at different times in different parts of the earth. And Prof. Agassiz is particular to state that he regards all the races, though descended from different primeval pairs, as having the same relations to the moral government of God, as constituting, spiritually and intellectually, one brotherhood, and as having one destiny. He claims, moreover, that all this is consistent with the sacred Scriptures, and feels it keenly that he has been represented as holding doctrines at variance with the teachings of the Bible.
Let us now inquire what estimate should be placed upon the theory thus set forth.
I. In the first place, let it be remembered that it is a mere theory. No one, so far as we know, has attempted to prove it, or even claimed that it is susceptible of proof. It is an hypothesis resorted to for the purpose of escaping the difficulties supposed to arise from the inconsistency of certain facts revealed by modern science with the ordinary view of the chronology and unity of the race. It is not pre-. tended that any clear traces can be discerned along the track of man's history of a plural origin of the race. There is certainly, as we go back in time, a convergence of lineage, of language, and of tradition toward one parental center; there is not toward . any other. The streams of migration during the ages have apparently come from one common fountain in Central Asia; there is no other such fountain wom which they came. If there are or have been any nations whose origin can not be traced to Adam
Voan, it is sufficient to say that neither can they
uraced to any other source. All positive evidence that there was more than one parental stock, irom
the various races and families have descended, is absolutely wanting. The alleged inconsistency of any known facts
with the Scripture doctrine, to obviate. which resort is had to the theory of plurany never yet been demonstrated.
the case of Cain. It is said that he was afraid that somebody would slay in crime of murdering Abel; and as there but three living persons of the family of Baliace
Sons of the family of Adam, he
must have referred to people of another race. But how is it ascertained that there were then but three persons living? Who knows how many children may have been born to our first parents between these two brothers, or how many after the birth of Abel? Who can tell what the age of either of the brothers was at the time of the homicide? Certainly, even Abel had grown to something like man's estate, and Cain was older than he. Besides, why limit the murderer's fears to persons then living ? There were generations to come, among whom he knew that the story would be told; and he miglrt well apprehend that some avenger of blood would arise long years after that, to redress the wrong done to his kinsman, and inflict justice upon his slayer.
In the matter of Cain's wife, also, the difficulty is greatly exaggerated. It is conceded that the first marriage among Adam's descendants must have been between a brother and sister. But it by no means follows that such a marriage, in those circumstances, was incestuous, in the later signification of that term. He who appointed marriage for the welfare of the race could have sanctioned it, in this necessary instance, as readily as he forbade the repetition of it afterward. Besides, the difficulty is not obviated by the supposition of another race, among whom Cain, may have found a wife. For