of the organic, physiological, and psychological differences which were present among themselves, and compares them with those which are shown among domestic animals. He takes into view all the variations in the form of the skull, and bones in other parts of the body, the size, color of the skin, color and quality of the hair, etc., etc., and draws from the whole the following conclusion: "The organic and physiological differences seen in the different varieties of mankind are analogous to those which are known to exist among the domestic animals, and the psychological differences of the different peoples of the earth are neither original nor permanent." And Professor Owen, than whom there is no greater authority on topics of this kind, says, "With regard to the value to be assigned to the distinctions of race, in consequence of not any of these differences being equivalent to those characteristics of the skeleton or other parts of the frame upon which specific differences are founded by naturalists in reference to the rest of the animal creation, I have come to the conclusion that man forms one species, and that differences are but indicative of varieties.

These varieties merge into each other by easy gradations. The Malay and the Polynesian link the Mongolian and the Indian [Indo-European] varieties, and the Indian is linked by the Esqui

La Peyrère, a mixture of complete faith and free criticism. This book convinced no one, and the doctrine of the author soon fell into forgetfulness, until within a few years since it has been reproduced and welcomed with a favor sufficiently unexpected."

It is not surprising that a theory so repugnant to the general teachings of Christianity should have met with favor from the apostles of French infidelity. Voltaire and Rousseau reproduced this argument in their attempts to shake the authority of the Scriptures.* But, according to Quatrefages, it was reserved for America to bring this doctrine into notice, and give it any considerable currency. His account of the matter is substantially this: In 1846 Professor L. Agassiz, in a visit to Charleston, S. C., broached the theory of the plurality of origin for the human race in the "Literary Conversations Club," of that city. The expression of these views aroused a decided antagonism in that meeting. The professor found two able opponents in the persons of the Rev. Drs. Bachman and Smyth, who both spoke and wrote in opposition to him. Professor A. pub

lished his views in extenso in the "Christian Exam. iner" for March and July, 1850; and afterward, in 1854. in an essay entitled "The Natural Provinces

* Smyth's Unity of the Human Species, p. 163, Eng. ed.

of the Animal World, and their Relation to the Different Types of Man," inserted in Nott and Gliddon's "Types of Mankind." In 1849 Dr. Nott published his work entitled "Biblical and Physical History of Man," being the substance of two lectures delivered by him in New Orleans the previous year. In 1854 .Nott and Gliddon issued the book just mentioned on the "Types of Mankind."

It was in this manner that the discussion of the question as to the unity of the human race was renewed, after a silence of two hundred years. The agitation of it on this side of the Atlantic drew attention to it on the other, and brought into the field a considerable number of able writers, most of whom, so far as I am aware, took ground in favor of the unity of the race as descended from the family of Noah.

According to Quatrefages, the chief interest of the discussion in this country grew out of its supposed bearings upon the institution of slavery. "Thus in America," he says, "the anthropological question is complicated with that of slavery; and` from reading the greater part of the writings that have come to us from beyond the sea, it is clear that there they are, before all, advocates or opponents of that institution. But in the United States it is necessary always to be biblical; and hence came the

"Let us turn again to the inorganic world. Do we there find oxygen blending by indefinite shadings with hydrogen, or with any other element? Is its combining number, its potential equivalent, a varying numberusually 8, but at times 8 and a fraction, 9, and so on? Far from this; the number is as fixed as the universe. There are no indefinite blendings of elements. There are combinations by multiples or sub-multiples, but these prove the dominance and fixedness of the combining numbers.

"But further than this, fixed numbers, definite in value and defiant of all destroying powers, are well known to characterize nature from its basement to its top-stone. We find them in combinations by volume as well as weight, that is, in all the relations of chemical attraction; in the mathematical forms of crystals and the simple ratios in their modifications- evidence of a numerical basis to cohesive attraction; in the laws of light, heat, and sound. Indeed, as we have elsewhere said, the whole constitution of inorganic nature, and of our minds with reference to nature, involves fixed numbers; and the universe is not only based on mathematics, but on finite determinate numbers, in the very natures of all its elemental forces. Thus the temple of nature is made, we may say, of hewn and measured stones, so that, although reaching to the heavens, we may measure, and thus use the finite to rise toward the infinite.

"This being true for inorganic nature, it is necessarily the law for all nature; for the ideas that pervade the uni

verse are not ideas of contrariety, but of unity and universality beneath and through diversity.

"Looking to facts in nature, we see, accordingly, everywhere, that the purity of species has been guarded with great precision. It strikes us naturally with wonder, that even in senseless plants, without the emotional repugnance of instinct, and with reproductive organs that are all outside, the free winds being often the means of transmission, there should be rigid law sustained against intermixture. The supposed cases of perpetuated fertile hybridity are so exceedingly few as almost to condemn themselves, as no true examples of an abnormity so abhorrent to the system. They violate a principle so essential to the integrity of the plant-kingdom, and so opposed to nature's whole plan, that we rightly demand long and careful study before admitting the exceptions.

"A few words will explain what is meant by perpetuated fertile hybridity. The following are the supposable grades of results from intermixture between two species:

"I. No issue whatever the usual case in nature.

"2. Mules (naming thus the issue) that are wholly infertile, whether among themselves or in case of connection with the pure or original stock.

"3. Mules that are wholly infertile among themselves, but may have issue for a generation or two by connection with one of the original stock.

"4. Mules that are wholly infertile among themselves,