"All our quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, and even our plants, in the temperate regions of America, are found to differ from those in every other part of the world.* The fauna of Europe so much resembles our own in its genera, that the American traveler feels in that country as if he was among neighbors, but not quite in his own family, inasmuch as the species, though nearly allied, all differ, with the exception of those that have been transported and become naturalized. Of birds, we are at present acquainted with 520 species that exist in America, north of the Tropic of Cancer. Of these, twenty-six land birds and seventy-six water birds are identical with those of Europe. The land birds here enumerated resort to the polar regions in summer, for the purpose of rearing their young, and in autumn find their way to the temperate regions of both continents. A few of the water birds, such as the wandering shear-water (Puffinus Anglorum), and the petrels, possess such powers of flight that they cross the Atlantic in any latitude. The geese, ducks, gulls, terns, common gannet, etc., proceed far north during summer, and, by their aquatic habits and great powers of flight, migrate southerly along the shores of the Atlantic, both in Northern Europe and America. Of the remaining 418 species, they are restricted within certain latitudes in America, and are found in no other country.

"We have within the parallels of latitude referred to

* Except, of course, those which have been introduced by man. — B.

above, in North America, two hundred and seven species of quadrupeds. Of these, only eight, all of which are polar animals, are found in the north of Europe, or the adjoining continent of Asia; these are, the polar bear, arctic fox, wolverine, ermine, pine martin, wolf, beaver, and the polar hare. The remainder are restricted to certain geographical ranges, and are found nowhere else."

Professor B. advances similar statements respecting fishes and plants, and concludes as follows: Reasoning then from analogy, we are led to conclude that, since no species of quadruped, bird, or reptile, and, we may add, insect or plant, has been created in two or more localities; therefore we are not warranted in adopting the improbable idea that God would create the same species of man in five, ten, or fifty localities, and thereby not only violate the order of creation, but even act contrary to the very laws of probability." (p. 266.)

It should be added, in this connection, that Professor Agassiz himself concedes that his view of the plural origin of man is an exception to the general rule in the animal creation. While [the lower] animals are of distinct species in the different zoölogical provinces to which they belong, man, notwithstanding the diversity of his races, constitutes one only and the same species over all the surface of the globe. In this respect, as in many others, man

seems to us to form an exception to the general rule in this creation, of which he is, at the same time, the object and the end." *

IV. The polygenetic theory of the origin of mankind meets with a formidable objection from theological and moral science. I know that many naturalists repudiate all reference to theology in the discussion of such a question as this. But are they consistent in so doing? They endeavor, as much as possible, to gather weapons from every department of natural science against theology; but when the batteries are turned in reply, they exclaim, "This is a question of science, and theology has nothing to do with it." But, we may ask, is not theology a science? And though professed theologians differ in regard to many essential doctrines of theology, yet do they differ more than do the naturalists - even the masters-in regard to some of the natural sciences, say, e. g., that of theology?

It is a maxim with scientific men that all the sciences harmonize with each other, and it is always customary to bring facts and illustrations from one to elucidate and confirm another. And it would be. strange, indeed, if theology could shed no light on a

* An account of the geographical distribution of animals, by L. Agassiz, in the Swiss Review, Neufchatel. Quoted by Dr. Bachman, p. 248.

question so directly concerning a religious being. We admit that man is an animal, but he is a moral and religious animal. And having discussed the subject, as we properly may, in its purely natural aspects, by whose dictum shall we be debarred from considering it also in its supernatural, its religious aspects? Such an objection finds no warrant in true science, which looks for truth wherever it is to be found.

Two points here merit our attention. Whatever be the characteristics that make man a moral and religious being, they are possessed in common by all races of men. These characteristics are the power of speech, the moral sense, the æsthetic faculty, etc. I do not say that all races, in their rude condition, have these in a like degree, but that they all possess them. Not a people on the globe has been found so degraded that these qualities, under the influence of Christian missions, have not been developed among them. Of course teaching does not create them. It merely calls into exercise qualities which previously existed, though, in some cases, in almost a dormant state. In the fact that man thus possesses a moral nature, he stands apart from the entire animal creation besides, and constitutes a single distinct species.

The other fact is, that all men sustain a like rela

tion to God and his government. All are in a fallen and morally debased state, and need redemption and salvation. And it is a doctrine of Christian theology, that Jesus Christ is a divine Redeemer for all. Now, this fact can not be adjusted to the theory of a plurality of origin without doing violence to the piainest teachings of the New Testament. By one inan sin entered into the world, and the race became a fallen race; by one man also salvation is provided, and its blessings are opened to all. The very fact of the common relation of all men to Adam, their parental head, is made the type and the ground of their similar common relation to Christ, the second Adam, the Saviour of the world.*

We conclude, then, that Ethnology, in its physiological aspects, concurs with history as respects the unity of the race. She presents to us no facts which are inconsistent with that unity; she finds nothing in the analogies from the lower races of animals which does not illustrate and confirm it.

* Rom. v. 12-19; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, 45.