070. III. The Unity Of Man.

III. The Unity Of Man.

1. Question of a Unity of Species.—As the unity of man is definitely the question of a unity of species, we require for its proper treatment a definite view of species. Seemingly, this is no easy attainment, for definitions greatly vary. However, we may pass with slight notice the polemics of the question, and present in a brief statement all that our own discussion requires. For any true sense of species we require its fundamental idea or ideas. This principle will hardly be questioned; and yet it cannot bring definitions into unity, for the reason that these ideas differ in the view of different minds. We appropriate the following: “Species is a collection of individuals more or less resembling each other, which may be regarded as having descended from a single primitive pair by an uninterrupted and natural succession of families.”^[386] There are in this definition two fundamental facts—resemblance and genetic connection. We should state more strongly the principle of filiation or genetic connection, but not more strongly than the author holds it, as appears elsewhere.

^[386]Quatrefages:The Human Species, p. 36. The doctrine of species varies as it makes more fundamental the one or the other of these ideas, or as it omits the one or the other. There are both forms of variation; but mostly both ideas are embodied in definitions. After a statement of the definitions by Ray and Tournefort, that of the former embodying only the principle of filiation, and that of the latter only the principle of resemblance, Quatrefages proceeds to say: “Ray and Tournefort have had from time to time a few imitators, who, in their definition of species, have clung to one of the two ideas. But the immense majority of zoologists have been aware of the impossibility of separating them. To convince ourselves of this fact it is only necessary to read the definitions which they have given. Each one of them, from Buffon and Ouvier to MM. Chevreul and C. Vogt, has, so to speak, proposed his own. Now, however they may differ in other respects, they all agree in this. The terms of the definitions vary, each endeavors to represent in the best manner possible the complex idea of species; some extend it still further, and connect with it the idea of cycle and variation; but in all the fundamental idea is the same.”^[387] This is the statement of an author at once learned and candid, and who writes in open view of the modern theories of evolution.

^[387]The Human Species, p. 36.

Professor Gray holds the same doctrine of species, and also sets it forth as the more common doctrine of naturalists. We may cite a few of his statements: “The ordinary and generally received view assumes the independent, specific creation of each kind of plant and animal in a primitive stock, which reproduces its like from generation to generation, and so continues the species.”^[388] “According to the succinct definition of Jussien—and that of Linnaeus is identical in meaning—a species is the perennial succession of similar individuals in continued generations. The species is the chain of which the individuals are the links. The sum of the genealogically-connected similar individuals constitutes the species, which thus has an actuality and ground of distinction not shared by genera and other groups which were not supposed to be genealogically connected.”^[389] Such is the doctrine of species held by Professor Gray, and which he sets forth as the more common doctrine of naturalists. His learning and candor, which no one will question, give weight to his statements. Any favorable view of evolution which Professor Gray may hold does not really affect his doctrine of species. His theism is thorough and devout, and for him evolution would simply represent the mode of the divine agency in the origin of species. This would be a variation from the view of an immediate creation of the progenitors of species, but a variation which would not change the fundamental ideas of the doctrine.

^[388]Darwiniana, pp. 11, 12. For the same doctrine of species Gray cites the definition of Linnaeus: “Species tot sunt, quot diversas formas ab initio produxit Infinitum Ens; quae formae, secundum generationis inditas leges, produxere plures, at sibi semper similes.”

^[389]Darwiniana, pp. 163, 164.

While the ideas of genetic connection and resemblance are both regarded as fundamental in the doctrine of species, they are not so in Just the same form or measure. The deeper idea is that of genetic connection. It is the ground of likeness among the individuals. The likeness may be widely variable, while the genealogical connection must be constant and complete. With this connection the species abides, however slight the resemblance.

2. Theory of Unity with Plurality of Origins.—It is now a familiar fact that Louis Agassiz, a very eminent scientist of our own country, held distinct origins of the human races. Indeed, he held the same doctrine respecting different races in all the lower forms of life. However, the doctrine of Agassiz had no connection with the Darwinian evolution, for to that he was openly opposed. In his view the several human races originated in separate divine creations. Thus, instead of one original creation of a single pair as the common parentage of man, there were several such creations as the heads of the several races. The doctrine is most thoroughly theistic, and the extreme of supernaturalism respecting the origin of man, and, indeed, of all the lower forms of life. With such separate creations, the human races might still be one in all the facts distinctive or constitutive of species, except the one fact of genealogical connection. Without this connection God could so constitute the several races that they should possess in common all other characteristics distinctive of species. So far the unity of man could consist with a plurality of origins.

Some naturalistic evolutionists hold to separate origins of the several human races. If such an origin of man is possible, there may have been a plurality of origins. If the requisite natural conditions could meet in one point, so might they in several, or even in many. In such a case, however, there could be no account of the unquestionable unity of the several races in specifical facts. Such origins are assumed to be widely separated in time and place, and hence an exact identity of natural conditions could not be the remotest probability. But if the environment is a strongly molding force over all the forms of organic life, the widely different conditions of human evolutions must have caused wide differences in the products. Hence such plurality of human evolutions is disproved by the specifical unity of the several races. This consequence cannot be voided by alleging the distinctions of the several races as the whole account of the different natural conditions of their separate evolutions. These distinctions are merely superficial or incidental, and fully accounted for by differences of environment in the actual life, while in all the intrinsic and constitutive facts of mankind the several races are without distinction.

Mostly such plurality of origins is maintained as a necessary account of the distinctions of race. It might be held as simplifying the question respecting the distribution of mankind, but, with the present knowledge of facts, can no longer be claimed as necessary to its solution. With the profoundest students of the natural sciences, and particularly of anthropology, a unity of origin makes no serious difficulty in accounting for that distribution. Some of the most diverse and widely separated races are easily traced back to an earlier connection, while decisive facts warrant the inference of an original unity. With such facts already in hand, we need not be perplexed with any questions of distribution which may still wait for their interpretation.

3. Distinctions of Race and the Question of Unity.—The distinctions of race constitute the chief objection to the specific unity of mankind. There are wide variations of human type, particularly in size, form, and color. Hence the question is, whether such variations are consistent with a common parentage, or whether the several races require separate origins. This is largely a question of science, and so far we must look to scientists for its proper treatment. At least we are dependent upon them for the requisite facts. Scientists are not agreed in a common doctrine. Some hold a plurality of human origins. With such, however, there is no agreement respecting the number, and the scale runs from four or five up to sixty or more. The weight of scientific authority is for a unity of origin. The question of species is common to the manifold forms of vegetable and animal life. Hence on the ground of analogy the variation of types, as related to the unity of species, is properly studied these broader spheres. If variations of race appeared only in the case of man, a fixity of type in the many other species would largely discredit his unity. If in those species there were many variations of type, but only slight in comparison with the distinctions in man, such a difference would place his specifical unity in uncertainty. On the other hand, if variations of type are common to all species, and are often as great or even greater in the spheres of botany and zoology than in the distinctively human sphere, then the objection to the unity of man on the ground of the distinctions of race is discredited and denied all logical force. In the light of natural history many such variations are open and clear. It is in the use of such facts that scientists easily obviate the chief objection to the specifical unity of man. The tendency of species to diverse and wide variations, and the actuality of such variations, are clearly pointed out by Professor Gray.^[390] We may cite two brief passages out of the references. “As to amount of variation, there is the common remark of naturalists that the varieties of domesticated plants or animals often differ more widely than do the individuals of distinct species in a wild state: and even in nature the individuals of some species are known to vary to a degree sensibly wider than that which separates related species.” “But who can tell us what amount of difference is compatible with community of origin?” Community of origin is with this author the deepest fact of species. The instances which he adduces as illustrative of actual variation clearly show that a very wide range is compatible with unity of species. Hence the variety of human races is compatible with the specific unity of man.

^[390]Darwiniana, pp. 26, 27, 97, 111, 203.

Quatrefages treats the question in the same method, and reaches the same result; only, his treatment is much fuller, and, by so much, with higher cumulative force. He thus states his own method: “Any one really desirous of forming an opinion upon the unity or multiplicity of the human species should therefore discover what are the facts and phenomena which characterize races and species in plants and animals; then turn to man and compare the facts and phenomena there presented with those which botanists and zoologists have observed in the other kingdoms. If the facts and phenomena which distinguish the human groups are those which, in other organized and living beings differentiate species, he will then legitimately infer the multiplicity of human species; if, however, these phenomena and facts are characteristic of race in the two former kingdoms, he must conclude in favor of specific unity.”^[391] In this legitimate method the question is fully discussed. Many facts are adduced as instances of wide variations of type within well-known species. It is clearly pointed out that in animal and plant races variations attain limits never exceeded, and rarely reached, by the differences between human groups.^[392] Such variations are pointed out in all the particulars of size, color, and form, and are shown to be equal to such as appear in the differences of human races. The conclusion of the author is fully warranted: “The several facts which I have here enumerated seem to me sufficient to justify the proposition which I asserted at the commencement of the chapter, namely, that the limits of variation are almost always more extensive between certain races of animals than between the most distinct human groups. Consequently, however great the differences existing between these human groups may be, or may appear to be, to consider them as specific characters is a perfectly arbitrary estimation of their value. It is, to say the least, quite as rational, quite as scientific, to consider these differences only as characters of race, and even on that account to refer all the human groups to a single species.”^[393] If the specific unity of man is not thus fully proved, the chief objection which it encounters in the distinctions of race is thoroughly obviated. But only the full discussion of this author can give the full force of his argument.^{[394] [391]} The Human Species, pp. 41, 42.

^[392]The Human Species, pp. 43, 43.

^[393]Ibid., p. 55.

^[394]Ibid., chaps, 4-6.

Against this account of the distinctions of race, it is alleged that the varieties of type are as remarkable for their fixity for their early appearance; that through all the centuries of history and the changes of environment they remain the same. From this alleged persistence of human types it is inferred that they could not have originated in differences of environment. On the validity of this inference, it would follow that each race is a distinct species, with its own separate origin.

There is a persistency of human types through long periods of history, and under great changes of climatical condition. So much is readily conceded. However, this concession falls very far short of all that is claimed in the above argument for a plurality of species. That the several types undergo no change, or only the slightest change, is not at all conceded. Many variations have occurred in historic times, and even in comparatively recent times. A selection of such instances is given by Dr. A. H. Strong.^[395] The brevity of his summary renders it very suitable for citation: “Instances of physiological change as the result of new conditions: The Irish, driven by the English two centuries ago from Armagh and the south of Down, have become prognathous like the Australians. The inhabitants of New England have descended from the English, yet they have already a physical type of their own. The Indians of North America, or at least certain tribes of them, have pornuinently altered the shape of the skull by bandaging the head in infancy. The Sikhs of India, since the establishment of Babel Nina’s religion (1500 A. D.) and their consequent advance in civilization, have changed to a longer head and more regular features, so that they are now distinguished greatly from their neighbors, the Afghans, Thibetans, Hindus. The Ostiak savages have become the Magyar nobility of Hungary. The Turks in Europe are, in cranial shape, greatly in advance of the Turks in Asia from whom they descended. The Jews are confessedly of one ancestry; yet we have among them the light-haired Jews of Poland, the dark Jews of Spain, and the Ethiopian Jews of the Nile valley. The Portuguese who settled in the East Indies in the sixteenth century are now as dark in complexion as the Hindus themselves. Africans become lighter in complexion as they go up from the alluvial river-banks to higher land, or from the coast; and on the contrary the coast tribes which drive out the Negroes of the interior and take their territory end by becoming Negroes themselves.”

^[395]Systematic Theology, pp. 242, 243. From such facts it is reasonably inferable that there is no fixity of human types which disproves their origin in climatical conditions. It is true that m the instances cited there are no variations equal to the deeper distinctions of race; but this lack is fully compensated by the difference of time. In the one case we have, at most, only a few centuries; in the other, thousands of years. If in the shorter time such physiological variations could arise from changes of environment, the deeper distinctions of race could so arise in the vastly longer time.

Admitting the slightness of variation under great climatical change, as claimed in many instances, there is an interpretation which obviates all inference against the origin of race distinctions from natural causes. This interpretation lies in the fact that, with great climatical change, there is in many modern instances but slight exposure to the natural causes of physiological change. “There are some reasons which make it probable that changes of external condition, or rather of country, produce less effect now than was formerly the case. At present, when men migrate they carry with them the manners and appliances of civilized life. They build houses more or less like those to which they have been accustomed, carry with them flocks and herds, and introduce into their new country the principal plants which served them for food in the old. If their new abode is cold they increase their clothing, if warm they diminish it. In these and a hundred other ways the effect which would otherwise be produced is greatly diminished.”^[396] The facts were very different in many early migrations. Without agriculture or domestic animals, without homes for shelter, with only the rudest weapons, men were wholly dependent upon natural resources, and would be without protection from the natural causes of physiological change in any new climatical conditions. It is thus obvious that such change would be more rapid and extensive than in many modern migrations. It follows that the slightness of change in such modern instances cannot disprove the origin of race distinctions from natural causes under the early conditions of full exposure to their force.

^[396]Lubbock:Prehistoric Times, p. 589. This question is placed in yet another view. It is the view that the infancy of a species is the time of its most rapid variation into races or types, that such variations soon reach their limit, after which the several types become so fixed as to suffer little further change. Respecting the Negro—the standard instance of an early and persistent type: “What it does prove is a fact equally obvious from the study of post-pliocene mollusks and other fossils, namely, that now species tend rapidly to vary to the utmost extent of their possible limits, and then to remain stationary for an indefinite time.”^[397] It appears in these statements that such laws are not assumptions to meet a doctrinal exigency, but scientific inductions on the ground of facts. Nor are such facts limited to the human species and races, but are found broadly in natural history. With this wider sphere of inductive facts, the more certain are these laws. Their relation to the distinctions of race is obvious. They account for the variation of species into these distinctions on natural grounds; for the early appearance of the several human races; and also for their permanence. It follows that neither the early appearance nor the permanence of the several human types is any disproof of their origin in natural causes. Neither fact, therefore, is any disproof of the specifical unity of mankind.^{[398] [397]} Dawson:Story of the Earth and Man, p. 360.

^[398]Prichard:Natural History of Man, sec. xlviii; Whedon:Methodist Quarterly Review, 1878, p. 565.

4. Scientific Evidences of Specifical Unity.—A sufficient account of the distinctions of race in natural causes is not in itself conclusive of a specifical unity of mankind. Its direct logical value is in the refutation of the argument from these distinctions for a plurality of species. There is, however, a large indirect value for the doctrine of unity. In the history of relative facts there is no call for the agency of God in repeated original creations of mankind. Hence a single original creation is the only rational inference. Beyond this inference there is a further value in the refutation of that chief argument for a plurality of species: it clears the way for all the more direct evidences of the unity of man. A summary of these evidences must now be given.

There is a oneness of races in physical characteristics. The distinctions are superficial, and the result of local influences. The oneness in all intrinsic facts of the physical constitution is as real as. in any animal species. The human body is intrinsically one among all races: one in chemical elements; one in anatomical structure; one in physiological constitution; one in pathological susceptibilities.^{[399] [399]} Quatrefages:The Human Species, book ix; Prichard:Natural History of Man, pp. 477-486.

There is among all the different races a oneness of psychological endowment. This oneness appears as the result of a thorough analysis of the facts concerned in the question. Superficially, differences are many and obvious. It is easy to set in wide contrast the barbaric Negro and the cultured. Christianized Caucasian. There are, however, instances of little less difference between one and another of the Caucasian race. But in this case the difference is understood to be only accidental or superficial, while there is still a oneness in all the intrinsic facts of mind. A thorough analysis gives the same result respecting all the races of men. The mental differences are accidental or superficial, while the intrinsic facts of mind are the same in all. There are the same sensibilities, with their marvelous adjustment to the manifold relations of life; the same intellectual faculties, which constitute the rationality of mind; the same moral and religious nature, which, while it may sink to barbarism and idolatry in the Caucasian, may rise to the highest moral and Christian life in the Mongolian and Negro.^[400]

^[400] Quatrefages:The Human Species, pp. 431-498; Dorner:System of Christian Doctrine, vol. ii, pp. 92, 93; Prichard:Natural History of Man, pp. 486-546.

Prichard carries the discussion of these questions through many pages, and with his characteristic lucidity and candor. Widely diverse races are brought into view, that their oneness in the essential facts of mind may be fairly tested. Any one who follows the author with a mind open to the truth must find it most difficult to reject his conclusion: “We contemplate among ail the diversified tribes, who are endowed with reason and speech, the same internal feelings, appetencies, aversions ; the same inward convictions, the same sentiments of subjection to invisible powers, and, more or less fully developed, of accountableness or responsibility to unseen avengers of wrong and agents of retributive justice, from whose tribunal men cannot even by death escape. We find every-where the same susceptibility, though not always in the same degree of forwardness or ripeness of improvement, of admitting the cultivation of these universal endowments, of opening the eyes of the mind to the more clear and luminous views which Christianity unfolds, of becoming molded to the institutions of religion and of civilized life: in a word, the same inward and mental nature is to be recognized in all the races of men. When we compare this fact with the observations which have been heretofore fully established as to the specific instincts and separate psychical endowments of all the distinct tribes of sentient beings in the universe, we are entitled to draw confidently the conclusion that all human races are of one species and one family.”^{[401] [401]} Prichard:Natural History of Man, pp. 545, 546. The sexual union of the most distinct races is just as fruitful as that within the purest and most definite race. The progeny of such union are entirely free from hybridity. Their fruitfulness is permanent and without decrease. If in some instances it may be less, in others it is greater, so that there is a full average. Here are facts utterly unknown in all the crossings of animal species. It is only from the union of closely allied species that there is any produce. There is only the most limited fruitfulness of such offspring; never a permanent fruitfulness. Here is the law of hybridity; a law which is the chief guide of science in the analysis and classification of species. But this law is wholly unknown among human races. It follows that human races are not separate species, but simply varieties of one species. The law of hybridity which limits the production of a permanently fruitful progeny to the species, and so denies it to the crossing of species, is one of the most obvious laws of natural history. A mere statement of the relative facts must make this plain. “The law of nature decrees that creatures of every kind shall increase and multiply by propagating their own kind, and not another. If we search the whole world, we shall probably not find one instance of an intermediate tribe produced between any two distinct species, ascertained to be such. If such a thing were discovered it would be a surprising anomaly. The existence of such a law as this in the economy of nature is almost self-evident, or at least becomes evident from the most superficial and general survey of the phenomena of the living world: for if, as some have argued, there were no such principle in operation, how could the order, and at the same time the variety, of the animal and vegetable creation be preserved? If the different races of beings were intermixed in the ordinary course of things, and hybrid races were reproduced and continued without impediment, the organized world would soon present a scene of universal confusion ; its various tribes would become every-where blended together, and we should at length scarcely discover any genuine or uncorrupted races. It may, indeed, be said that this confusion of all the living tribes would long ago have taken place. But how opposite from such a state of things is the real order of nature! The same uniform and regular production of species still holds throughout the world; nor are the limits of each distinct species less accurately defined than they probably were some thousands of years ago. It is plain that the conservation of distinct tribes has been secured, and that universally and throughout all the different departments of the organic creation.”^[402] It thus appears that the very possibility of a natural science is conditioned on the law which limits the production of a permanently fruitful progeny to the species. Hence the fact of such a science is the fact of such a law. The presence of this law is ever the proof of specifical oneness, however wide the variations of race. It follows that the several human races, among which this law is without any limitation, are one species.

^[402]Prichard:Natural History of Man, pp. 12, 13.

“The infertility, or, if you will, the restricted and rapidly limited fertility between species, and the impossibility of natural forces, when left to themselves, producing series of intermediary beings between two given specific types, is one of those general facts which we call a law. This fact has an importance in the organic world equal to that rightly attributed to attraction in the sidereal world. It is by virtue of the latter that the celestial bodies preserve their respective distances, and complete their orbits in the admirable order revealed by astronomy. The law of the sterility of species produces the same result, and maintains between species and between different groups in animals and plants all those relations which, in the paleontological ages, as well as in our own, form the marvelous whole of the organic empire. Imagine the suppression of the laws which govern attraction in the heavens, and what chaos would immediately be the result. Suppress upon earth the law of crossing, and the confusion would be immense. It is scarcely possible to say where it would stop. After a few generations the groups which we call genera, families, orders, and classes would most certainly have disappeared, and the branches also would rapidly have become affected. It is clear that only a few centuries would elapse before the animal and vegetable kingdoms fell into the most complete disorder. Now order has existed in both kingdoms since the epoch when organized beings first peopled the solitudes of our globe, and it could only have been established and preserved by virtue of the impossibility of a fusion of species with each other through indifferently and indefinitely fertile crossings.”^{[403] [403]} Quatrefages:The Human Species, pp. 80, 81. The doctrine here is the same as that given from Prichard. These eminent authors did not rest the question with such summary statement, however decisive in itself. Each carefully and thoroughly studied the relative facts in natural history, and found them in full accord with the doctrine as summarily stated. We have the same conclusion as previously given. With the narrowly limited fruitfulness of all specifical crossings, the unrestricted fruitfulness between all the human races is conclusive of their specifical unity. So far, we have simply stated as a fact the average and permanent fruitfulness of the progeny from the union of the most distinct human races. No proof has been offered. There is little need of any formal argument. The fact is too open and too well known to be seriously questioned. It is verified by innumerable instances in modern history. These instances arise specially in the intercourse of Europeans with the Negro and the Indian or Redskin of America. The produce of such intercourse is fruitful without any stint. Hence every-where mixed races have arisen. Their permanence is conclusive of their freedom from the hybridity which suffers only a temporary existence to the progeny of specifical crossings. The facts are amply given, and with scientific clearness, by the authors recently cited.^[404] It will suffice to give their conclusion. “It appears to be unquestionable that intermediate races of men exist and are propagated, and that no impediment whatever exists to the perpetuation of mankind when the most dissimilar varieties are blended together. We hence derive a conclusive proof, unless there be in the instance of human races an exception to the universally prevalent law of organized nature, that all the tribes of men are of one family.”^[405] Quatrefages, having also reviewed the relative facts, says: “Thus, in every case crossings between human groups exhibit the phenomena characteristic of mongrels and never those of hybrids. Therefore, these human groups, however different they may be, or appear to be, are only races of one and the same species and not distinct species. Therefore, there is but one human species, taking this term species in the acceptation employed when speaking of animals and plants.”^[406] This author is fully warranted in these concluding words: “Now I wish that candid men, who are free from party spirit or prejudices, would follow me in this view, and study for themselves all these facts, a few of which I have only touched upon, and I am perfectly convinced that they wall, with the great men of whom I am only the disciple—with Linnaeus, Buffon, Lamarck, Cuvier, Geoffrey, Humboldt, and Midler—arrive at the conclusion that all men belong to the same species, and that there is but one species of man.”

^[404]Prichard:Natural History of Man, pp. 18-26; Quatrefages:The Human Species, pp. 85-87.

^[405]Prichard:Natural History of Man, p. 26.

^[406]The Human Species, pp. 87, 88.

Comparative philology is a witness for the specifical unity of man. This recent science is already a chief light in the study of ethnology. Affinities of widely separated races are thus discovered, and these races are traced back to a common origin and a primary ethnic unity. The existence of the same words in different languages is the proof of a primary connection and a common original. No principle of the inductive sciences is more valid. The primary unity of such languages carries with it the ethnic unity of the races which use them. “It is absolutely certain from the character of the French, Spanish, and Italian languages that those nations are in large measure the common descendants of the Latin race. “When, therefore, it can be shown that the languages of different races or varieties of men are radically the same, or derived from a common stock, it is impossible rationally to doubt their descent from a common ancestry. Unity of language, therefore, proves unity of species because it proves unity of origin.”^{[407] [407]} Hodge:Systematic Theology, vol. ii, p. 89.

Comparative philologists have thus been able to bring” back into a primary unity many widely separate and widely diverse peoples. The affinity of languages leads up to a primary unity of language, and hence to the unity of man. “The universal affinity of language is placed in so strong a light that it must be considered by all as completely demonstrated. It appears inexplicable on any other hypothesis than that of admitting fragments of a primary language to exist through all the languages of the Old and New World.”^[408] “Much as all these languages differ from each other, they appear, after all, to be merely branches of one common stem.”^[409] “As far as the organic languages of Asia and Europe are concerned, the human race is of one kindred, of one descent.” “Our historical researches respecting language have led us to facts which seemed to oblige us to assume the common historical origin of the great families into which we found the nations of Asia and Europe to coalesce. The four families of Turanians and Iranians, of Khamites and Shemites, reduced themselves to two, and these again possessed such mutual material affinities as can neither be explained as accidental nor as being so by a natural external necessity; but they must be historical, and therefore imply a common descent.” “The Asiatic origin of all these [American] tribes is as fully proved as the unity of family among themselves.”^[410] We may add one more testimony: “The comparative study of languages shows us that races now separated by vast tracts of land are allied together, and have migrated from one primitive seat. . . . The largest field for such investigations into the ancient condition of language, and, consequently, into the period when the whole family of mankind was, in the strictest sense of the word, to be regarded as one living whole, presents itself in the long chain of Indo-Germanic languages, extending from the Ganges to the Iberian extremity of Europe, and from Sicily to the North Cape.”^[411] The sense is that the inheritance of all these languages from a common source proves the original unity of the many widely different peoples which they represent.

^[408]Klaproth.

^[409]Schlegel:The Philosophy of History, p. 92, London, 1847.

^[410]Bunsen:Philosophy of Universal History, vol. ii, pp. 4, 99, 112; the last three authors as cited by Macdonald:Creation and the Fall, p. 381.

^[411]Humboldt:Cosmos, vol. it, p. 111.

Comparative philology thus makes it clear and sure that peoples widely separated in place, and representing very distinct racial types, were originally one family and one blood. What is thus proved to be true of a part may be true of the whole. Indeed, in the absence of all disproof, the only rational inference is that all human families were originally one family. More and more is the wider study of comparative philology pointing to this truth. The results already attained render groundless the distinctions of race for a plurality of origins, and prove beyond question that more or less of the several species as held by polygenists are mere varieties of the one species.

5. The Scripture Sense of Unity.—The whole human race is lineally descended from Adam and Eve. There is hence a genetic connection of all mankind. This is the obvious sense of the Scriptures. It appears in the more definite statements respecting the origin of man and the peopling of the world, and also in various incidental and doctrinal references to the race. There is the creation of a single pair as the beginning of the human species and the progenitors of all mankind. It was for them to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:27-28). Such was the order of Providence, and the multiplying people down to the time of the flood were in unbroken genetic connection with them (Genesis 5:1-2). The repeopling of the world was from the sons of Noah, who clearly stand in lineal descent from Adam and Eve (Genesis 10:1; Genesis 10:32). All these facts are openly given in the earlier chapters of Genesis. The notable words of Paul to the Athenians must mean the genealogical oneness of mankind. “And (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). The New Version drops the word blood; so that in its rendering we read simply, “And he made of one every nation of men.” The weight of critical authority is against the genuineness of αίμα in the Greek text. This was the reason for the new rendering. The change strengthens the sense of a genealogical unity. While the words “of one blood”—εξ ένος αίματος—clearly point to such a unity, they might be claimed to express simply a oneness of nature which is consistent with a plurality of origins. The new rendering is in no sense open to such a claim. We cannot so supplement the words “made of one” as to read, “made of one nature or kind.” Of one man, of one father, or of one parentage, is the only permissible rendering. There was reason with Paul for the utterance of such a truth in the presence of his Greek audience. On the notion of autochthonism the Athenians claimed for themselves a distinct origin, and thereon the distinction of a special superiority over other nations. Now as on this great occasion Paul declares all men by their creation to be the offspring of God (Acts 17:28), so he declares all to be mediately the offspring of a common parentage. This is the meaning of the words, “And he made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” This is the deepest unity of man; not only that of a specifical oneness of nature, but also that of a genealogical oneness.

There are other words of Paul which give the same sense (Romans 5:12; Romans 5:17-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). In the passages given by reference both the prevalence of sin with all men and the death of all are traced back to a connection with the sin of Adam. These facts involve doctrinal questions which more properly belong to another division of the subject, but irrespective of this have special significance for the present point. The common sinfulness of the race could not in the deep sense of Paul be consequent on the sin of Adam without a common genealogical connection with him. Neither could there be the consequence of death as common to all without such a connection. So much may be said with the fullest warrant, and quite irrespective of certain doctrinal grounds of such consequences as set forth in theology.^[412]

^[412] Van Oosterzee:Christian Dogmatics, vol. i, pp. 363, 364; Macdonald:Creation and the Fall, p. 373; Dorner:System of Christian Doctrine, vol. ii, p. 89.

6. A Special Theory of Pre-adamites.—This theory is the same in principle as the polygenism which holds a plurality of origins for the more distinct races. It is peculiar in claiming for itself entire consistency with the Scriptures, and even that it is necessary to their proper interpretation. For many centuries there was no question in the Church respecting either the unity of man or the true primariness of Adam. The new theory was initiated by Peyrerius, a Romish priest. His first work^[413]—a disquisition on Romans 5:12-14—appeared in 1655. The existence of men before Adam is maintained as the sense of the passage named. The next year this work was followed by another from the same author, with a fuller discussion of the same theory. The theory encountered strong opposition, and soon sank into silence. This silence continued for two centuries, when the question was revived.

^[413]Pre-adamites, etc. The occasion for the new discussion was furnished in the discovery of facts which seemingly point to an antiquity of man far beyond the reach of biblical chronology. The aim is to adjust the alleged facts to the limitations of this chronology. The method is to regard Adam, not as the first man, but as the first of a distinct race, which appears in the opening of biblical history. This Adamic race falls within the limits of biblical chronology, while the facts which point to a much higher antiquity of man must be interpreted on the theory of earlier races. The existence of such races is in the fullest consistency with the Scriptures. Such is the theory.

While the advocates of this theory agree that the Adamic race is distinct from others, and of later origin, they are not agreed as to its ethnic composition. For instance, the Adamic race is with Peyrerius simply the Hebrew race; with McCausland, the Caucasian in distinction from the Mongolian and Negroid; with Winchell, the Mediterranean or white race, but as including Japhetites, Semites, and Hamites.^{[414] [414]} Pre-adamites, p. 52. As this theory claims to be thoroughly scriptural, very naturally the proof of it is sought in the Scriptures. Its later advocates go beyond the Scriptures into such facts of ethnology, geology, and archaeology as are usually adduced in proof of a high antiquity of man. In this, however, we need not here follow them, as we have previously considered these facts. It could not be overlooked by thoughtful writers who appeal to the Scriptures for proof of this theory that it is in seeming collision with fundamental truths of Christian anthropology and soteriology. Nor could all endeavor toward a reconciliation be omitted. Here the theory encounters insuperable difficulty, as we shall point out in the proper place. Later advocates of the theory on scriptural grounds very properly omit the argument of Peyrerius from the notable passage of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12-14). So far from being the ground of an argument, the reconciliation of the passage with the new theory is above the power of its advocates.

Much use is made of familiar incidents in the life of Cain. He is a fratricide and a fugitive, and suffers the remorse of sin and the severity of the divine judgment. He is seized with the dread of vengeance: “Every one that findeth me shall slay me.” God in pity sets upon him a seal of protection, “lest any one finding him should slay him.” So Cain went forth from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. He next appears in married life. There is born to him a son, whom he names Enoch. He builds a city and calls it after the name of this son (Genesis 4:8-17). In view of such facts the argument for pre-adamites is easily constructed. On the face of the narrative, Adam and Eve and Cain at this time composed the whole Adamic family. Who then were the slayers whose vengeance Cain so dreaded? And where did he find a wife? And how could he so soon build a city without the co-operation of people already existing? And why should a city be built, except for the occupancy of such people? The interpretation of these facts requires the existence of pre-adamites.^{[415] [415]} McCausland:Adam and the Adamite, pp. 194-197; Winchell:Pre-adamites, pp. 188-193. The argument is plausible, and seemingly possesses much force. It might be deemed conclusive, if the question hinged entirely upon the incidents here narrated. Such, however, is not the case. Many other facts concern the question, and such as are more decisive of the issue. For any conclusiveness, the argument requires an unwarranted assumption of fullness in this early Adamic history. For aught we know, the family of Adam may have already multiplied to a very considerable number, at least to one sufficient for the incidents in the life of Cain. The birth of only Cain and Abel previous to that of Seth is, in view of the time given by the manhood of both before this event, an unreasonable supposition. The omission of other names is nothing against the assumption of other births. Neither is the formal naming of the three, which no doubt was for special reasons. Thus, on the reasonable supposition of a considerable increase in the family of Adam beyond the names given, the incidents in the life of Cain are sufficiently provided for without the existence of pre-adamites. In view of very decisive facts of Scripture against this theory, we very much prefer the above solution of the questions arising from such incidents. The unity of man by genealogical descent from Adam and Eve implies the marriage of brothers and sisters in the initial history of the race; and much account is made of the fact by the advocates of this pre-adamite theory. It is a case in which strong words may be used. Strong words are used.^[416] The only avoidance of so repugnant a consequence is in the existence of pre-adamites, with whom the children of Adam might unite in lawful marriage. Such is the view.

^[416]Winchell:Pre-adamites, pp. 190, 191.

How would Professor Winchell account for the initial multiplication of the race without the implication which he so strongly reprobates? On his theory, only the coincident evolution of two human beings, respectively male and female, could meet the lowest requirement for the inception of a human race. It might be said that such man and woman, even if born of the same animal parentage, would not be brother and sister, because such a relation has no sufficient ground in such a parentage. However, their children would be brothers and sisters, and there would still be no provision for a human race without their intermarriage. Hence the theory must assume the coincident evolution of distinct human pairs, and, reasonably, from distinct animal parentages, so as to provide for marriage without the consanguinity of brother and sister. Such evolutions must be assumed to be coincident in both time and place; for otherwise their children could never meet in wedlock, and the lawful requirements for a human race would still be wanting. A coincident creation of distinct human pairs, if such were the divine order, would be entirely responsive to rational thought; but such opportune evolutions to meet the exigencies of this pre-adamitism are not responsive to such thought. It thus appears that this theory has for itself no escape from the implication which it so strongly repels, except through the most unwarranted assumptions. The requirement of pre-adamites in order to provide lawful marriage for the children of Adam carries with it serious difficulties in the question of ethnology and the distinctions of race, while the implication so strongly objected to the Adamic origin of man still cleaves to this theory. On this theory, the distinctions of race are from separate origins or evolutions, not from differences of environment. Such is the law for the deeper distinctions of the Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasian races. The Negroid is held to be the oldest. There must be an oldest, and the case is the same whichever be the race. “We proceed on the supposition of the Negroid. For a beginning, the theory requires the coincident evolution of a Negroid man and woman. But how shall the race be propagated without the marriage of brothers and sisters? There are no pre-negroidites with whom they might intermarry. If the deeper distinctions of race are original, the Negroid must be original, without any mixture of blood by the marriage of its first family of sons and daughters with an older race. Otherwise, it is impossible to identify any original race, and the ethnology of this theory becomes an utter tangle. Whence the Mongoloid? Some have thought him the mongrel child of the Negro and the Caucasian. If such be his origin, the Caucasian race is older than the Mongoloid, while the latter is clearly of lower grade. Therefore this view is out of accord with the theory of evolution, which cannot allow the antecedence of a higher race to a lower. Nor can it agree with many of the alleged proofs of pre-adamites. Hence Professor Winchell consistently rejects it.^[417] On his own theory of the evolution of distinct races, the Mongoloid must be a new type by evolution from the Negroid stock. How shall the new type be perpetuated except by propagation within itself? If the first offspring of the newly evolved type must intermarry with the original stock, it can have no permanence. But the propagation within itself, as necessary to its perpetuation as a distinct race, requires the intermarriage of brothers and sisters. Adam appears as a ruddy white man. His origin is by evolution from an older stock, not by direct creation. He is the beginning of the Caucasian or white race.^[418] How is this new type to be propagated so as to preserve its distinction as the Caucasian race? The children of Adam must not inter- marry. For its avoidance the pre-adamites must be on hand. Cain married a Mongoloid.^[419] Other children of Adam, at least the earlier, must have done the same. So the theory requires. It is the union of a very few with a race already numerous. The slight infusion of white blood will readily be absorbed without any noticeable or abiding variation of the Mongoloid type. It cannot be so with the new type. The grandchildren of Adam are half-Mongoloid, and each succeeding generation must be still more conformed to that type. There is here no parentage for the propagation of the distinct Caucasian race. Nor could there be any distinct Adamic race.

^[417]Pre-adamites, p. 189.

^[418]Ibid., p. 294.

^[419]Pre-adamites, p. 295.

While such difficulties cleave to this theory, nothing is gained by thus recasting the traditional interpretation of Scripture. There is in it no avoidance of the special objection under review. On the initiation of a human race without the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, science sheds not a ray of light. Hence pre-adamites should not hastily and dogmatically urge such an objection against the primariness of Adam. Any relief for his family can be gained only at the cost of an earlier family. On any theory, there must have been a beginning of mankind; and at that beginning, whenever placed, such pre-adamites must find their own objection on hand, and with all its force against themselves. For purely naturalistic evolutionists the question has no concern, but for theistic evolutionists it has profound concern; and it is far better that they should modestly and reverently leave it with the providence of God. Surely the ordering of the matter was wholly within his prerogative. Nor should we judge the question out of our present feelings. The case may have been very different in the first family of the race. God may have given to the sons and daughters of Adam a conjugal cast of the affectional nature rather than a brotherly and sisterly cast. On the ground of theism there is no perplexity in such a view. In the constitution of man nothing is more remarkable than the adjustment of his affectional nature to his manifold relations. It is an instance of the purest divine teleology. Nor shall we hesitate to believe that in like manner God could easily provide for any exigency arising in the initial history of the race.

7. Doctrinal Interest in the Question of Unity.—Polygenism, or an original plurality of races, in whatever form of the theory, is in opposition to fundamental doctrines of Christian theology. We instance anthropology and soteriology. The Adamic origin of mankind; the sin and fall of the primitive pair; the consequent moral lapse and ruin of the race; the redemption of the race by Jesus Christ: the inclusion of all men in the race so ruined and redeemed—these are clear truths of Scripture. A few texts will suffice for the proof. The most explicit is the great passage of St. Paul (Romans 5:12-19). It affirms the facts of anthropology and soteriology which we summarily stated. Through the sin of Adam all men suffer the consequence of depravity and death. Then for all men so ruined by the Adamic fall there is a common redemption in Jesus Christ. There is another text which, with its profound implications, gives the same truths: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). It thus appears again that the death of all men is a consequence of Adamic sin, and that for all as so involved there is a common redemption in Christ.

Neither polygenism in general nor pre-adamitism in particular can adjust itself to these truths of Christian theology. Of course, the attempt is made; but its futility is easily exposed. How could races existing long before Adam, and out of all genealogical connection with him, suffer the consequences of his sin? Any affirmative answer must assume a retroaction of Adam’s sin. Such retroaction is assumed. The position of Peyrerius is thus stated: “Death entered the world before Adam, but it was in consequence of the imputation ‘backward’ of Adam’s prospective sin; and this was necessary, that all men might partake of the salvation provided in Christ”^[420] McCausland regards the pre-adamites as sinners on their own account, and finds in the words of Paul, not the universality of Adamic sin, but the universality of the redemption in Christ: “The Saviour redeemed Adam and his race, as the apostle states; but the redemption extends from the highest heaven to the lowest Hades—from Abel, Enoch, and Noah to ‘the spirits in prison,’ who were not of Adam’s race.”^[421] The equivalence of great facts, as given in the comparison of Paul, is thus annulled. In this view the redemption in Christ immensely transcends the extent of Adamic sin and death, while in the sense of Paul the two are of the same extent.

^[420]Winchell:Pre-adamites, p. 458.

^[421]Adam and the Adamite, p. 294.

Professor Winchell’s own argument for the consistency of pre-adamitism with Christian doctrine is mostly put in certain questions: Why could not antecedent races share with Noah and Abraham in the plan of salvation? If the atonement was retroactive for four thousand years or more, why not a few thousand years farther? If it reached Adam, why not his ancestry? Why should the limitations of Hebrew knowledge limit the flow of divine grace?^[422] These questions might all be answered in the implied sense of the author, and yet be valueless for the proof of his theory, because, at most, they could give only the inference of a possible extension of redemptive grace, while the real question concerns the actual facts of sin and redemption as given in the Scriptures.

^[422]Pre-adamites,pp. 285, 286.

Professor Winchell gives prominence to certain utterances of Dr. Whedon, which, however, were confessedly only tentative or hypothetic, and were subsequently withdrawn.^[423] There was a time when the evidences of a high antiquity of man seemed to Dr. Whedon very strong, and when he thought it possible that further disclosures might prove an antiquity beyond the reach of biblical chronology. In forethought of such a contingency he suggested the admission of pre-adamites as probably the best mode of adjusting Christian doctrine to such antiquity: “Why not accept, if need be, the pre-adamic man? If Dr. Dawson admits an Adamic center of creation, why not admit, if pressed, other centers of human origin? The record does not seem to deny other centers in narrating the history of this center. The atonement, as all evangelical theology admits, has a retrospective power. It provides, as St. Paul says, ‘remission for the sins that are past’—that is, for those who lived and sinned before Christ died; and who received ‘remission’ from God in anticipation of the atonement. It was thus that Abraham was justified by faith, through the Christ that had not yet made the expiation. The atonement thus may throw responsibility and propitiation for sin over all past time, all terrene sections, and all human races. So, too, the sin of Adam may bring all past misdoings of earlier races under the category of sin and condemnation—that is, under the inauguration of a system of retribution which otherwise would not have taken existence. Some theologians have held that the atonement throws its sublime influence over other worlds than ours; why not then over other human races? Here, as often elsewhere, science, that seemed to threaten theology, does but open before it broader fields and sublimer elevations. It contradicts our narrow interpretations, and reads into the text worlds of new meaning. With this provisional view we have not the slightest misgiving as to the effect of the demonstration of the pre-adamite man upon our own theology.”^{[424] [423]} Ibid., pp. 286-289, 470, 471.

^[424]Methodist Quarterly Review, 1878, pp. 369, 370.

We cannot share the confidence of Dr. Whedon in such a mode of adjustment, in case the exigency should ever arise. We think the mode discredited by the assumptions which it requires. These assumptions were previously indicated, and now more fully appear in the above citation. One is the retroaction of Adamic sin; the other, the retroaction of redemptive grace. In both cases the retroaction must be such as to reach pre-adamic races. In itself considered, the latter assumption involves no serious perplexity. The atonement was in the plan of God the provisional ground of salvation for the Adamic race from the beginning, and, on the existence of prior races, might have been made available for them. So far, however, the putting of the case is purely hypothetic, while such an extension of redemptive grace is purely a question of fact. The other assumption of a retroaction of Adamic sin which brings pre-existent races “under the category of sin and condemnation” seems to us utterly inadmissible. The full consequence of Adam’s sin upon his own race in genealogical descent from himself is full of perplexity. Without the genealogical connection any such consequence must be purely arbitrary, and the product of an immediate providential agency. This implication is not avoidable by a derivative connection of the Adamic race with earlier races, as held by Professor Winchell. The reason is obvious. Genealogical relations have no retroactive power. Heredity ever moves forward, never backward. It remains true that any involvement of earlier races in the sin of Adam must have been a purely arbitrary determination. Such a mode of guilt and retribution has no consistency with Christian theology—certainly none with an Arminian system. With Dr. Whedon himself, in his final view, we think it better not yet to accept the pre-adamite, and not to provide for him until his actual coming.^{[425] [425]} Methodist Quarterly Review, 1878, p. 567. The idea of a broader relation of the atonement than to mankind often appears in theological discussion. It was easy, therefore, for Professor Winchell to cite numerous instances.^[426] Any service of the idea to the theory of pre-adamites must depend upon its content. Rarely has it been maintained that the atonement is for other sinners than those of mankind.

^[426]Pre-adamites, pp. 289-293. When viewed as more broadly related, it is simply as a fact of paramount interest, as a lesson of profoundest moral significance, to all intelligences. Such is the whole content of the idea in its usual theological expression. We find nothing more in the instances cited by Professor Winchell. In most of them it is beyond question that this is all. We read nothing more in the citations from Bishop Marvin;^[427] nothing more in that from Dr. Chalmers.^[428] Indeed, we know that he meant nothing more. The citation from Hugh Miller^[429] means simply the familiar idea of an original inclusion of redemption in the divine plan of creation and providence, without any intimation of an atonement for other than human sinners. Any further sense of Sir David Brewster must be a mere inference from an hypothetic interrogation.^[430] With Professor Winchell we also could heartily appropriate the words long ago uttered by Bentley: “Neither need we be solicitous about the condition of those planetary people, nor raise frivolous disputes how far they may participate in Adam’s fall, or in the benefits of Christ’s incarnation;”^[431] but they shed no light upon this pre-adamitism. There is no ground in Scripture for any notion of a retroaction of sin and grace in the ruin and recovery of pre-adamic races. Nor can we see how the views of authors, as above stated, could be thought of any value in the support of such a theory.

^[427]The Work of Christ, pp. 10, 70, 74, 78, 137.

^[428]Astronomical Discourses, discourse iv, p. 134.

^[429]Foot-prints of the Creator, p. 326.

^[430]More Worlds than One, English edition, pp. 166, 167.

^[431]Boyle Lectures, 1724, p. 298.