mode of distribution are now in operation, suggest the likelihood that the same arrangements existed in former times, and actually effected the distribution which we find. The very same principle that requires us to suppose that the geological distribution of rocks was made by natural causes such as we now see in operation, demands that we should hold the same supposition in regard to the zoological distribution of animals. But even if it were demonstrated that these causes, in any conceivable mode of their operation, are insufficient to account for the effects, it will not follow that a separate creation in each locality is demanded as the only alternative. Some extraordinary agency must be supposed; but is this the only one? If a miracle must be assumed, may it not as readily have been in the distribution of these races to their present localities, as in their creation within them? Does not universal observation show that direct creation is usually the last expedient resorted to, in the attainment of any end? Now what is there to demand it as the only alternative here? We submit then that there is nothing in the distribution of animals requiring a miracle at all; and that if any such unusual interposition of Divine power was needed, it is much more likely to have been in the distribution of races already created, than in their separate and distinct creation.

But suppose these three links of the chain mended, the fourth breaks with the weight that is hung upon it. Grant that there are distinct zoological provinces; that they are so isolated from each other that their fauna and flora could not have come forth from a common centre; and that a separate creation in each province is the only mode of overcoming the difficulty,—we find that the races of men are not co-extensive and identical with these alleged zoological provinces.

One would think, from the confidence with which the learned Professor asserts the identity in the two cases, that not only the zoological provinces were clearly made out, but the limits of the races also plainly and universally ascertained. But there is no point in natural history more undetermined than this. Some make but three races, others five, others eleven, others still more; but the most remarkable fact is, that Professor Agassiz does not positively determine this point himself. He enumerates about a dozen zoological provinces, but not more than half that number of races. Why this significant silence? If his theory is really true, why did he not tell us what the races are, that inhabit these provinces? We shall perhaps see the reason as we examine the relations of the two distributions. This examination our limits will only allow us to make in one or two of these provinces which he has mapped out.

His first province is the arctic, with the Samoyedes, the Laplanders, and the Esquimaux. But can any one suppose that an animal so helpless as man, so destitute of natural covering, protection, and food, could originate in the bleak and inhospitable regions of the pole, where he could obtain neither clothing, fire, nor food? If we suppose him to have originated in a warmer region, and migrated thither, with his acquired knowledge and habits, these difficulties vanish; but if we suppose him created, a naked, shivering Troglodyte, amidst the eternal snows, we must pile miracle on miracle to account for his continued existence. But even if this difficulty were overcome, the Esquimaux of America are as widely separate from the arctic races of Asia, in distance, difficulty of communication, and physical features, as the latter are from the adjacent tribes of the Mongolians, or the former from the northern tribes of Indians. Why not make an Asian arctic, and an American arctic, on the same grounds that a distinction is drawn between the southern arctic and the northern Mongolian? There is absolutely no ground in the one case that does not exist as broadly in the other. The Malay race he assigns to a natural zoological province; but what it is, he does not inform us. It cannot be limited to his tropical Asiatic province, for it extends through Polynesia to western America, by the testimony of the most accurate observers, even those who deny the original unity of the races. The same difficulty exists in the provinces of New-Holland and Africa. The Tasmanian and Alforian races of the New-Holland province differ far more widely than the Malay and the Mongolian; and we have shown that Africa presents the widest extremes of variety, with every intermediate shade, from the fair races of Abyssinia to the genuine Dahomey negro. But when we come to the American provinces, the theory breaks utterly and hopelessly down. He makes four such provinces: one east, and one west of the Rocky Mountains; one in tropical America, and one in temperate South America. But where are the four races corresponding to them? Do not all recognise the same physical type in all our aboriginal tribes? Has even Professor Agassiz dissented from this? How then can the facts be cut up to fit the theory? But if we had the four races that have been created on this continent, what will we do with the Patagonians? The same questions might be asked in regard to the Papuan, Feejee, and other races, which though clearly and strongly marked cannot be referred to any distinct or definite zoological provinces.

It is abundantly evident from this brief enumeration of facts that there is no such coincidence in the geographical distribution of the races and that of the plants and animals, such as is asserted by this

theory. But suppose all these difficulties removed, and yet the last step could not legitimately be taken. If the races and zoological provinces were identical, that fact clearly could not prove that each race was created in its province. All that it could prove would be, that the human races, and the fauna and flora of each province, were subjected to the same or similar influences, giving them this identity of limitation. What these influences were, would not be determined by this coincidence of boundary, and would therefore remain matter for further investigation. Whether they were natural or supernatural would not be determined by such identity of circumscription. And if we must assume a supernatural agency, it by no means follows, that creation is the only one. The Divine power might as readily have been exerted in causing these peculiarities, or in distributing these races, as in their direct creation; and if we must assert its interposition to account for the varieties, we have at least the same right to affirm the smaller and more ordinary exercise of it, that he has to affirm the greater and more extraordinary.

The fact on which he lays so much stress, that climatic conditions are not exactly coincident with the various races, will prove that climatic conditions are not the only agencies at work in producing these varieties; and nothing more. What these other agencies are, and whether distinct creation is the only conceivable one, is wholly undetermined by this fact. His remark, that the adaptations of man to his various localities must have been intentional, is true; but it does not follow from this, that separate creation of each race was the only way in which this intention could be carried into effect. We grant that these adaptations were intentional, and simply affirm that they were brought about by an original susceptibility to such adaptations impressed by God on man's physical constitution; and that the same reasons for its existence at first require its existence now, and undoubted facts prove that it actually does exist. Designing man to be a cosmopolite, and to subdue the earth, he impressed him with this susceptibility, and the result is, the varieties we find in the races of the world. So far then is this designed adaptation of man to the various localities in which he is found, from proving that the varieties were separately created, it is the very fact that makes this supposition unnecessary.

We thus find this chain of assumptions to break at every link. Whilst there are zoological provinces, they are not such as to forbid their occupance by natural and existing causes; or if supernatural agency were required it is not necessitated to be in the form of creation; and if these points were reached, they would not avail us,

for the races of men are not identical with these provinces; and if they were, this identity would be explicable by that adaptive susceptibility of the human constitution to conform itself to the varying conditions in which it is placed, with which man, as the destined conqueror of the earth has been furnished; and if some direct and unusual interposition of Divine power must be supposed, it was much more likely to be in producing these varieties from a race already existing than in calling new ones into existence. Hence in every part of this new theory we find it more completely untenable than the old one.

We have neither the space nor the heart to follow the Professor into all his random utterances. It were cruel to take advantage of all the exposed points he presents to an opponent. Thus, in tossing aside the philological argument, he says, that it is as natural for men to talk, as it is for dogs to bark, or asses to bray, and that one bird does not learn its song from another; and hence we could not from the phenomena of language infer unity of origin. Now, if one bird does not learn its song from another, does this prove that one human being does not learn its language from another? And aside from the fact that it is not natural for dogs to bark, as they never do it in their wild state, is there no difference between an inarticulate cry, and the use of a set of conventional sounds to designate certain thoughts? Does not the one imply previous arrangement and agreement, where the sounds are the same, whilst the other does not? If we argued man's original unity from his instinctive cries, it were pertinent to refer us to the instinctive cries of animals; but when, from the fact that the same or similar collocations of syllabic sounds are applied by different races to the same natural objects, we argue that there must have been a previous agreement that these sounds should designate these objects, the reference to the braying of asses, etc., looks really like trifling.

But his exegesis is as curious as his logic. He asserts triumphantly, that the Bible is solely an account of the white race, and makes no reference at all to the other, and, as he terms them, the non-historical races. We would be glad to know how he has discovered that Adam and Noah belonged to the white race at all. The best critics have been unable to discover any evidence for it from Scripture; and scientific grounds, we are disposed to think, indicate the primitive type as intermediate between the white and the black. But, however this may be, the assertion that the Bible sanctions the original plurality of the races is amazing. Is it not expressly affirmed, that before the creation of Adam there was not a man to till the ground? That when he was created, man (the

generic term always used to denote the whole human race) was created? That he was the head of the human race-the one by whom sin and death entered the world? If then the non-historical races sin and die, have they not these proofs of their connexion with Adam? Is not Eve called the mother of all living? And did Moses know of no other living races but the white one? Does he not expressly declare (Deut. xxxii, 8,) that the divided nations of the earth are the sons of Adam? Does he not refer the Ethiopian and Egyptian races to Noah through his sons Cush and Mizraim? Is not the physical characteristic of the Cushite unequivocally intimated when it is said that he cannot change his skin? Did not Christ expressly endorse this when he taught monogamy from the original unity of the race in Adam and Eve; and when, to fulfil the prophecies respecting Ethiopia, China, (Sinim,) and the islands of the Sea, he commanded his disciples to go and preach the Gospel to every creature? And can words declare it, if Paul's did not, when, in opposition to the Athenian doctrine of a separate, autochthonal creation for Attica, he declares that God has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the whole earth? Is not the entire Bible-teaching about sin, the moral government of God, the fall of man, and redemption in Christ, based on this assumption? If we exclude the non-historic races from all connexion with Adam, must we not, by the express language of Paul, (“as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,”) also exclude them from all connexion with Christ? And if on the contrary they are expressly affirmed to be connected with Christ, does not this also affirm their connection with Adam? Must not a cause that requires such exegesis as this be pressed for support?

race;

That Professor Agassiz was aware how wide and deep was the sweep of his views, is apparent from his fling at mock philanthropy; his assertion of the original and necessary inferiority of the African his avowed inability to decide what is the best education that can be given them; and his magisterial denunciation of the injudiciousness of the attempt to force the peculiarities of our present white civilization on all the nations of the world. The plain meaning of all this is, that the benevolent and missionary operations of the Church, in their application to any other than the white race, are foolish and futile attempts to traverse the immutable ordinations of the Creator.

We cannot trust ourselves to speak of sentiments like these as perhaps they really deserve. There is something in this coldblooded and haughty assignment of more than half the human race to a doom of hopeless, irreversible degradation, for time and eter