II. Unity of the Human Race

The fact that the human race descended from one pair (Gen. i. 27) is confirmed by numerous traditions of paganism. It is true, however, that there appeared also polygeniam or sutochthonism, the theory of eponymous ancestors (see Eponym), which was represented especially by the Greeks and revived in the period of the Renaissance. Blumenbach opposed polygenism in his work, De generic hurnani vorietate nativa (Göttingen, 1795); similarly Prichard, John Herschel, the two Humboldts, and others. Since the appearance of Darwin's doctrine of evolution the theory of monogenism has been adopted more generally. Several of the moat important ethnologists, Oskar Peschel, T. Waitz, A. de Quatrefages, Keane, adhere to the theory of the unity of the human race, or at least to its origin from a common hearth, if not from one single pair. In favor of Biblical monogeniam may be advanced: (1) The different races of men do not lose their power of procreation by intermarriage. Blumenbach, Buffon, Johann Müller, Waitz, Quatrefages, and others have emphasized this fact as decisive for the unity of the race. (2) Among all human races, the skeleton, the period of pregnancy, and the average duration of life are the same. (3) Apparent divergencies of the races in the formation of the skull, the quality of akin, hair, etc., may be explained by climatic conditions. (4) Linguistic objections against monogeniam do not stand upon a solid basis, since in the course of hundreds and thousands of years languages are subject to considerable changes. (5) Archeology and the science of religions furnish important material for the. proof of the original unity of the human race. The wide circulation of certain religious traditions in primitive history, especially of the legends of the flood, can hardly be explained otherwise than by the assumption of primitive relations of affinity. Moreover, the legends of the, American people pointing to repeated immigrations of their ancestors from Eastern Asia contradict the assumptions of American autochthoniam or activism, as it was represented by George Squier, H. Bancroft, Lorenz Diefenbach, J. G. Müller, and others. (6) The different races of humanity reveal a thoroughgoing uniformity and spiritual relationship also in a psychological and ethical respect. Even the moat barbarous tribes are capable of participating in the higher spiritual interests of humanity. The idea of the impotence of the Christian religion as a civilizing power over against the stupid resistance of lower races (cf. De Gobinesu, Easai suf l'ireegaliM den races humainea, Paris, 1853) has been amply refuted by the activity of Christian missionaries among the savages of all parts of the world.

III. Antiquity of Man: The usual system of Biblical chronology makes the period from Adam to Christ cover 4,000 years (see Time, Biblical Reckoning of). Such a short period seems to be inconsistent with the alleged unity of the race, but the effects of sin must not be left out of account in determining this question. There is much in the chronological tables of the Old Testament to make any calculation based upon them of questionable accuracy. There is at any rate some truth in the words of Chalmers, that " the sacred writings do not fin the antiquity of the globe," and those of Le Air and De Sacy, "There is no Biblical chronology." It is quite possible that the lists of the patriarchs in Gen. v. and xi. are incomplete. The Bible, in fact, seems to allow for a longer duration o£ the human race by several thousands of years than the usually accepted chronology makes out. The records of Egyptian history seem to make an extension of the chronology necessary (see Egypt). The primitive history of Babylonia may be traced back even further than that of Egypt. From recent discoveries in Babylonia (q.v., III., ~ 6), especially those of Hilprecht (since 1893) it seems to be sufficiently evident that South Babylonia possessed a royal dynasty already before Sargon, so that it may be safely assumed that the beginnings of Babylonian culture date back at least 5,000 years (see Babylonia, V., § 1, VI., 1-2). Of leas value are the arguments based upon geological calculations according to which the age of man is measured by ten thousands of years. There is as yet no reliable geological chronometer, but it is proved by recent discoveries in caves that man must have lived at the close of the great ice period, that is, during the great geological deluge; but when this period began and when it ended, remains still a matter of uncertainty. Quatrefagea justly criticizes the lavish extravagance with which many Darwinians Calculate time. Even Lyell wen obliged, in the later edition of his Geological Eviderecea of the Antiquity of Man (London, 1863), to modify his earlier statements.. E. B. Tylor, it is true, in his Anthropology (London, 1881) holds that some dozens of 6eaturies within the period of historical time are not sufficient to explain the gradual development of the distinctions of the human race, but, on the other hand, he declares the oldest human remains from the earliest stone period as " lying back out of the range of chronology."

From the very beginning the spirit of man has been the principal factor of .his being. It is his true Ego. Judged according to its original conception and its higher divine destiny, humanity is a thoroughly good and noble principle; but by the invasion of sin into the development of the race its innate nobility has degenerated. Without redeeming help from above, without the intervention of the incarnate, Son of God, a return to the normal and original condition would be impossible. While humanity is still far removed from the full realization of its ideal in an ethical and religious respect, faith in the final victory of the good in humanity over the evil moat not be given up, as little as the striving after the highest development of culture must cease. The realm of Christ and the realm of true humanity form concentric circles; the ideal of humanity is very little distinguished from the Christian ideal of life. The trae aim of humanity

145

is rightly understood only by those of its apostles who see in the pioneers of foreign and home missions of Christianity their self-evident allies, and in the holy spirit of Christ the perfec tion toward which all spiritual life of humanity moat tend.

(O. Zöckler†.)

Bibliography: On the Biblical doctrine of man consult the works in and under the article Biblical Theology, especially the treatises by H. Schultz, and W. Beyechlag. For the tres;tment in systematic theology cpneult the sec. tion on Anthropology in the works cited under Dogma, Dogmatics. Further works in the same line are: M. Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, New York, 1878; idem, Scriptural Idea of Man, ib. 1883; J. Laidtaw, Bible Doctrsue of Man, Edinburgh, 1879; and Bishop Butler's famous Sermons, new ed., Edinburgh, 1888.

From the scientific standpoint the reader is referred to the article Evolution and the literature under it, particularly the works of Darwin, Huxley, Fiake, Mivart, Wallace, Romanes, 1.e Come, Weiemann, CIOK MeCoah, Dodson, Calderwood, Haeckel. Consult further: the Duke of Argyll, Primeval Man, London, 1889; L. Figuier, Primitive Man, ib. 1870; C. Lyell, Antiquity of Man, ib. 1873; H. Spencer, Descriptive Sociology, 8 vols., ib. 1873-1882; J. F. McLennan, Studies %n Ancient History, ib. 1888; A. Quatrefagea. The Human species, ib. 1888; J. Lubbock, The Origin of Civilisation and Primitive Condition of Man, ib. 1881; C. F. Keary, The Dawn of History. ib. 1888; H. Lotae, Microcoamue, books iv. sqq., Edinburgh, 1888; E. Clodd, Ch%tdhood of the World, London, 1889; G. F. Wright, Ice-Age of America and its Bearinpa on the Antiquity of Man, New York, 1889; 0. Ziemaeen, Makrokoam>a Weltanschauung, Gotha, 1893; A. H. Keane, Ethnology, Cambridge, 1898; B: Plats, Der Meaech, Leipsic, 1898; C. Gutberlet, Der Me»ech, U, sprung and E> Paderborn, 1903; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, new ed., London, 1903; A. H. Wallace Man's Place in Nature, New York, 1903; L. H. Morgan: Ancient Society, reprint, New York, 1907.