11- It is applied to man as distinguished from woman: 'A man shall not put on a woman's garment' (Deut. xxii:5), like dv0pwros. (male), in Matt. viii:9; John i :6 ; to men as distin guished from children (Exod. xii :37) ; to a male child, in opposition to a female (Job iii:3; Sept. dperev, male child). lt is much used in poetry: 'Happy is the man' (Ps. xxxiv :8; x1:4; Iii :9; xciv:I2). Sometimes it denotes the species at large (Job iv:17! I4)• 12. Thus man is also the rendering of the Gr. AnSfir (may-dzce',not one, Matt. xvi:2o; xvii:9, Luke x:4, etc.; of cads., oo-dice', none, nobody, Matt. xi: 27; Mark iii:27; Luke viii:51, etc.; of Tlr, as, some one or any, Matt xxiv:4; John iii:5; Acts x:47, etc.); and in an inclusive sense riis, (pas, all, Rom. ii:to). (See ADAm.) Common Origin of Man. Scientists are di .vided into two schools on this subject, namely, Polygenists, or those who say there are more than one species, and monogenists, or those who con tend for the unity of the human species. Men of unquestimed scientific repute and ability are found on both sides of the question. Among Polygenists such scholars as Kant, Buffon, Desmoulins, Haec kel, Friedrich Muller, Louis Agassiz, and Pes chal ; and among monogenists are Blumenbach, Prichard, De Quatrefages, Cuvier, Max Milner, Prof. Owen and Charles Darwin.
The weight of evidence seems clearly to be on the side of the monogenists.
This view is contended for in this article.
To be plain it is very important that the def inition of the word species should be understood— for the solution of tbe whole problem hinges on the meaning of that word.
M.A. de Quatrefages gives the most concise and satisfactory definition of the word "species," as the word is used in reference to vegetables and animals, when he says "The species includes all more or less similar individuals which descend, or may be supposed to descend from a single ancestral pair in unbroken succession" (Unite de l'Espice Hu-maine, p. 54). This definition when applied to a consideration of men allows room for those variations among them resulting in what are called the races of Caucasians, Mon golians, Red Men, Malays and Negroes.
With "species" defined we are prepared to con sider briefly the arguments in favor of all men of all races having descended from one ancestral pair.
(1) The first argument is rooted in the facts concerning the habitat of men.
It would militate against the unity of human species were it true that one race of men could live only on a certain section of the globe.
The fact is if the transition is not made too suddenly, and proper precautions are taken, men of any nation can live in the region inhabited by any other nation.
The Chinese illustrate this, for they live on the border of Siberia and are also found on the Island of Singapore almost on the Equator.
(2) The unity of the languages of men in their primitive condition as exhibited in the identity of the roots of many words still in use among the scattered nations.
Max Muller shows by the phenom'ena of the three great classes of language that it is highly probable that they were originally one. Such eminent philologists as Bopp, Grimm, Klaproth, and Herder agree in this main proposition.
(3) Community of traditions among different and widely separated peoples, such as The Crea tion of Man; The Garden of Eden or its counter part ; man's temptation and fall; the division of time into weeks; the destruction of man by a del uge; and similar traditions are found to be cur rent among people as widely separated in color, location, and everything else as the Dyaks of Borneo and the North American tribes of In dians.
(4) Another argument quite similar to traditions is that of a community of customs, such as sac rifices to supernatural beings—known to have been offered in all parts of the earth and by all people. Serpent worship in Asia, Africa, Eu rope and A:nerica. Peschal (Races of Man, p. 2t, sq.) calls attention to the following customs: Al most all nations have arrived at a single and dou ble decimal system in mathematics; skin paint ing, and tattooing; filing the teeth to a point oc curs not only in western Africa but in Brazil. The skulls of children have been pressed between boards not only on the steppes of southern Rus sia but also by the aborigines of South Amer ica, by the Tshinuks of British Columbia and by the Flathead tribe of Indians in North Americ6. Many nations have practiced circumcision—the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, Phcenicians and tribes of Indians in South America. Greeting by rubbing noses by Eskimos and by aboriginal Australians.
Another custom has extended all over theworld —namely, the building of cairns or piles of stones which grow by having additional stones thrown on them by every passer-by. They may be seen in India, Burmah, Borneo, Thibet, the Sina itic Peninsula, Switzerland and Venezuela.
(5) All men have tfie same number and kind of bodily organs. The natural position of man is erect. All the nerves, muscles, bones, veins and arteries found in any man of any race are found in every other man of every race regardless of the color of complexion, the character of the hair or the degree of intelligence or culture.
The physical evidence of unity of human specie! which is most interesting and significant is the prevalence among men of that general which runs through the whole of both the vegetable and animal kingdoms, namely. the infertility of hy brids or members of different species, and the fecundity of members of the same species.
Applying this law to the case of men, observa tion and experiment show that the intermarriage of individuals of different races of men does not reveal sterility but the opposite.
No two races of men exist who cannot inter marry. This would not be true if the different races of men were different species of beings.
(6) The similarity of mental and moral fac ulties and habits is marked. Intellect, emotion and will. the mental nature of every Caucasian. The same is true of every Mongolian, every Ethiopian, every Malay and every red man. All men have conscience whereby they are sensible of right or wrong.
There arc to sum up, then, varieties of men, but all men belong to one species of beings.
If all men arc of the same species of being then the brotherhood of man follows. When that is appreciatcd slavery is not to be thought of. Yet again if all men belong to one species and not to many, then the voice of science harmonizes with that of religion, which proclaims (Gen. ill: 2o), "Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living:" and Mars Hill catches up the proclamation, as Paul stands and says more confidently than science can yet say: "God . . . bath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts xvii:24-26). (See C 0111111071 Origin of Man by Rev. Edward NI. Deems, A. M., in Christian Thought, April 1892, Q. 378.)