We have argued the recent origin of man on earth from the fact that all known nations and families have descended from Noah, and therefore must come within the range of the Noachian chronology. But, apart from the historical evidence of such descent, it is urged, from a study of man as he now is, the diversities of his form, size, color, physiognomy, etc., that existing races could not have had a common origin. It is claimed that this diversity requires, and that the Scriptures themselves virtually warrant, the belief that beside Adam and his descendants, there has been at least one, perhaps several, other original stocks of the human family, older than that of Adam; that the Scripture account of the creation does not include these, being designed to refer only to that branch to which the Jews, and the white races generally, belonged; and therefore that we are at liberty to assign to this elder branch or branches any supposable antiquity which modern scientific discoveries may require.

This doctrine of the plurality of the human species was first advanced by La Peyrère, a French writer, in a work published in 1655. The ground on which he professed to base it was the Bible itself, which, he maintained, gave clear intimations of a nonAdamite race. The principal passage he adduced in support of this theory was that which speaks of

Cain, after he received sentence for his crime, going out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelling in the land of Nod, marrying a wife there, and building a city. (Gen. iv. 16, 17.) In the preceding verses, also, when complaining of his sentence, he says, "I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me;" in consequence of which "the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." La Peyrère argued from these passages that there were, at that time, other men beside the family of Adam, which then consisted of only three persons; and that these other men, or this other race, must have been previously created. They were, he thought, the ancestors of the Gentiles, while Adam was the ancestor of the Jewish race, with whose creation and history the Bible is mainly occupied.

The distinguished writer from whom I derive this account says that La Peyrère was in no sense a free thinker (n'est nullement un libre penseur). "He was a theologian, a believer, who admits as true all that is in the Bible, and miracles in particular. He always finds in the book which serves him as a guide some reason to support his interpretation. In a word, we find throughout, in

3

* Quatrefages, Introduction, pp. 7, 8.

dard and weloveed with a fine suddently unexdoctrine of the author soce ki ko kegetalness, crines. This book ecevised no cce, and the La Peyrère, a mixture of complete faith and free

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

particular shades which distinguish certain anthropological works in that country. The anti-slavists are generally outspoken monogenists, and accept the dogma of Adam as it is commonly understood. Such is, also, professedly the faith of a certain number of slavists. These latter, to justify their conduct toward their black brethren, refer to the history of Noah and his sons. Ham, say they, was cursed by his father, and condemned to be the servant of his brethren. The negroes descended from Ham; therefore, in reducing them to slavery, we are obeying Holy Writ. But America reckons some beside slavists who are polygenists. These latter have again placed in honor, under different forms and in support of modern knowledge, the doctrine of La Peyrère, of which otherwise they say but little. All, speaking highly of the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments, endeavor to demonstrate, by linguistic, geographical, and historical researches, that the biblical accounts relative to the origin and affiliation of men apply only to the white races. . Thus put at ease, they have regarded the different groups as so many distinct species."

By far the most distinguished of this latter class of writers is Professor Agassiz. His opinions I will cite at length from the essay before referred to,

* Quatrefages, p. 11.