HYPOTHESES CONCERNING ORIGIN.
The first hypothesis, the doctrine of the monogenists, is ably supported by Latham, Prichard, and many other eminent ethnologists of Europe, and is the favorite opinion of orthodox thinkers throughout Christendom. The human race, they say, having sprung from a single pair, constitutes but one stock, though subject to various modifications. Anatomically, there is no difference between a Negro and a European. The color of the skin, the texture of the hair, the convolutions of the brain, and all other peculiarities, may be attributed to heat, moisture, and food. Man, though capable of subduing the world to himself, and of making his home under climates and circumstances the most diverse, is none the less a child of nature, acted upon and molded by those conditions which he attempts to govern. Climate, periodicities of nature, material surroundings, habits of thought and modes of life, acting through a long series of ages, exercise a powerful influence upon the human physical organization; and yet man is perfectly created for any sphere in which he may dwell; and is governed in his condition by choice rather than by coercion. Articulate language, which forms the great line of demarcation between the human and the brute creation, may be traced in its leading characteristics to one common source. The differences between the races of men are not specific differences. The greater part of the flora and fauna of America, those of the circumpolar regions excepted, are essentially dissimilar to those of the old world; while man in the new world, though bearing traces of high antiquity, is specifically identical with all the races of the earth. It is well known that the hybrids of plants and of animals do not possess the power of reproduction, while in the intermixture of the races of men no such sterility of progeny can be found; and therefore, as there are no human hybrids, there are no separate human races or species, but all are one family. Besides being consistent with sound reasoning, this theory can bring to its support the testimony of the sacred writings, and an internal evidence of a creation divine and spiritual, which is sanctioned by tradition, and confirmed by most philosophic minds. Man, unlike animals, is the direct offspring of the Creator, and as such he alone continues to derive his inheritance from a divine source. The Hebraic record, continue the monogenists, is the only authentic solution of the origin of all things; and its history is not only fully sustained by science, but it is upheld by the traditions of the most ancient barbarous nations, whose mythology strikingly resembles the Mosaic account of the creation, the deluge, and the distribution of peoples. The Semitic family alone were civilized from the beginning. A peculiar people, constantly upheld by special act of Providence from falling into paganism, they alone possessed a true knowledge of the mystery of creation. A universal necessity for some form of worship, a belief inherent in all mankind, in an omnipotent deity and a life beyond the grave, point to a common origin and prophesy a common destiny. This much for the monogenists.
The second hypothesis, that of the polygenists, holds that there was not one only, but several independent creations, each giving birth to the essential, unchangeable peculiarities of a separate race; thus constituting a diversity of species with primeval adaptation to their geographical distribution. Morton, Agassiz, Gliddon, and others in America, stand sponsors for this theory. The physiological differences of race, they say, which separate mankind into classes, do not result from climatic surroundings, but are inherited from original progenitors. They point to marked characteristics in various peoples which have remained unchanged for a period of four thousand years. In place of controverting divine revelation, they claim that Mosaic history is the history of a single race, and not the history of all mankind; that the record itself contains an implied existence of other races; and that the distribution of the various species or races of men, according to their relative organisms, was part of the creative act, and of no less importance than was the act of creation.
The third hypothesis, derived mainly from the writings of Lamarck, Darwin, and Huxley, is based upon the principle of evolution. All existing species are developments of some preëxisting form, which in like manner descended by true generation from a form still lower. Man, say they, bears no impress of a divine original that is not common to brutes; he is but an animal, more perfectly developed through natural and sexual selection. Commencing with the spontaneous generation of the lowest types of vegetable and animal life—as the accumulation of mold upon food, the swarming of maggots in meat, the infusorial animalcules in water, the generation of insect life in decaying vegetable substances—the birth of one form arising out of the decay of another, the slow and gradual unfolding from a lower to a higher sphere, acting through a long succession of ages, culminate in the grandeur of intellectual manhood. Thus much for this life, while the hope of a like continued progress is entertained for the life to come. While the tendency of variety in organic forms is to decrease, argue these latter-day naturalists, individuals increase in a proportion greater than the provisional means of support. A predominating species, under favorable circumstances, rapidly multiplies, crowding out and annihilating opposing species. There is therefore a constant struggle for existence in nature, in which the strongest, those best fitted to live and improve their species, prevail; while the deformed and ill-favored are destroyed. In courtship and sexual selection the war for precedence continues. Throughout nature the male is the wooer; he it is who is armed for fight, and provided with musical organs and ornamental appendages, with which to charm the fair one. The savage and the wild beast alike secure their mate over the mangled form of a vanquished rival. In this manner the more highly favored of either sex are mated, and natural selections made, by which, better ever producing better, the species in its constant variation is constantly improved. Many remarkable resemblances may be seen between man and the inferior animals. In embryonic development, in physical structure, in material composition and the function of organs, man and animals are strikingly alike. And, in the possession of that immaterial nature which more widely separates the human from the brute creation, the 'reasonable soul' of man is but an evolution from brute instincts. The difference in the mental faculties of man and animals is immense; but the high culture which belongs to man has been slowly developed, and there is plainly a wider separation between the mental power of the lowest zoöphyte and the highest ape, than between the most intellectual ape and the least intellectual man. Physically and mentally, the man-like ape and the ape-like man sustain to each other a near relationship; while between the mammal and the mollusk there exists the greatest possible dissimilarity. Articulate language, it is true, acting upon the brain, and in turn being acted upon to the improvement of both, belongs only to man; yet animals are not devoid of expedients for expressing feeling and emotion. It has been observed that no brute ever fashioned a tool for a special purpose; but some animals crack nuts with a stone, and an accidentally splintered flint naturally suggests itself as the first instrument of primeval man. The chief difficulty lies in the high state of moral and intellectual power which may be attained by man; yet this same progressive principle is likewise found in brutes. Nor need we blush for our origin. The nations now most civilized were once barbarians. Our ancestors were savages, who, with tangled hair, and glaring eyes, and blood-besmeared hands, devoured man and beast alike. Surely a respectable gorilla lineage stands no unfavorable comparison.
Between the first and the last of these three rallying points, a whole continent of debatable land is spread, stretching from the most conservative orthodoxy to the most scientific liberalism. Numberless arguments may be advanced to sustain any given position; and not unfrequently the same analogies are brought forward to prove propositions directly oppugnant. As has been observed, each school ranks among its followers the ablest men of science of the day. These men do not differ in minor particulars only, meeting in general upon one broad, common platform; on the contrary, they find themselves unable to agree as touching any one thing, except that man is, and that he is surrounded by those climatic influences best suited to his organization. Any one of these theories, if substantiated, is the death-blow of the others. The first denies any diversity of species in creation and all immutability of race; the second denies a unity of species and the possibility of change in race; the third denies all special acts of creation and, like