A Divine Humanity.

The dream of a whole or divine humanity is the equal partner of the dream of a whole or divine man. Both are [unclear: god] Like ideals, though neither is complete without the other. [unclear: Together] they cover the sphere of Truth. The sacredness of [unclear: the] individual implies ultimately the unity of the human race, [unclear: and] the doctrine of the survival of the fittest will always be [unclear: obnoxious] until it is seen that every individual has something in him which is fit to survive. From Kant, who could say : "Two [unclear: things] fill me with perpetual awe, the moral law and the starry heavens,' [unclear: to] the idiot, who knows nothing of law, and perhaps receives no impression from a star, is a long distance. From Guiteau [unclear: to] Garfield, from Wilkes Booth to Lincoln, from Judas to [unclear: Jesus], what mental and moral gulfs! Vile assassins, say we of [unclear: the] one class. Benefactors of mankind, of the other. And [unclear: in] course of time we condemn the one to everlasting infamy, [unclear: even] as we raise the other to everlasting glory. But how [unclear: superficial] all our judgments are, how little we can probe to the [unclear: depths] human motives. We feel a relationship with the great [unclear: and] good. They touch the finer chords of our natures, and what [unclear: is] noble in us responds to their nobility. Are [unclear: we] quite sure we do not hold as intimate a relation with the evil and [unclear: unfortunate] ones? The worst man who ever trod this earth was not [unclear: less] than a man; the best man who ever won our admiration [unclear: was] not more than a man. What infinite gradations between [unclear: the] two! It may be easy to gauge the extremes, but who is [unclear: wise] enough to detect the line which separates the one from the [unclear: other]:

Now, I think I hear some one exclaiming, perhaps a little page 6 [unclear: impatiently], this is all very good as speculation; it is true that [unclear: then] have been seeing such visions for a long time; but in this [unclear: scientific] age we have a right to demand something more than [unclear: reaming]. Yes, my friend, and something more than dreaming [unclear: you] shall have. The Unity of the Human Race is not entirely [unclear: vision]. It is fast coming to be a scientific verity. Why do assert that? Let me tell you.

The first impulse of barbarism is to quarrel. The necessity [unclear: or] social order and human government began in the hitting of [unclear: elbows] and the rise of angry passions. Antagonisms, parade [unclear: f] differences—these were among the earliest manifestations. [unclear: so], when men of varying nationality, color, or structure met in former times, and among uncivilized peoples when they meet [unclear: now], the first thought was or is—you are black and I am [unclear: white]; you are an Irishman, I am an Englishman; you are [unclear: mall], I am large, and so on. That is the way in which [unclear: emphasis] has been placed almost exclusively in the scientific realm [unclear: upon] what is called differentiation—the divergencies of growth [unclear: and] character. Most of the really scientific attempts to classify [unclear: mankind] for the last two or three centuries have been of this [unclear: nature]. The division adopted by Blumenbach, the one with [unclear: which] most of us as children were made familiar, was based [unclear: on] the color of the skin, the character of the hair, and the [unclear: shape] of the skull. Three facts, sure to win attention, sure [unclear: to] be deemed the most vital facts by crude peoples, but after [unclear: all], three superficial, and, as we shall see presently, minor [unclear: acts]. In this system the inhabitants of Europe and Western [unclear: Asia] became known as the Caucasian or White Race; those of? [unclear: artary], China and Japan as the Mongolian or Yellow Race; [unclear: Those] of the larger part of Africa as Ethiopians or Negroes; [unclear: The] Indians of North and South America as the American or [unclear: ted] Race; and the inhabitants of the islands of the Indian [unclear: Archipelago] as the Malayan or Brown Race. White, yellow, [unclear: plack], red, brown—that was supposed at one time to [unclear: be] scientific classification of humanity. Before Blumenbach, a [unclear: Dutch] anatomist attempted a system based on the shape of the page 7 skull and the size of the facial angle. Another system centred around the measurement of the cubic contents of each cranium. Another assumed three general classes with sub-divisions, the first being the races with smooth straight hair peculiar to the old world; the second those with the same characteristics peculiar to the new world, and the third the negro races. Dr. Pritchard, taking the form of the skull for his criterion, refers mankind to seven original stocks. Dr. Pickering, on the basis of color, finds eleven races. While Professor Agassiz, with another method, reaches still another conclusion. He adopted a zoological division. There is, he claimed, a certain natural relation between the races of men and plants and animals occupying the same regions. So he divided the earth into eight such regions, containing each its peculiar varieties of plant and animal life, and its peculiar type of man.

Now you will observe in every one of these instances what is inevitable in all study, that at first the student deals with secondary facts. He does not get back and clown to primary facts. And out of this superficial dealing has grown what real or supposed basis in Science the idea of caste has. Basis in Science, I say. Of course at an early period conquest and blood were the only authorities for tyranny. The strong had no desire to go back of their own animal passions, and the weak could not go back of them. But in more recent times the tendency has been to find a scientific basis for everything—that is, a basis which can be subjected to reason and receive its approval. Whatever may be said of other nationalities, this is certainly the tendency of our English-speaking peoples. The government of Gladstone cannot afford to hold a race in subjection simply because it is strong enough to do so. It cannot afford to carry even so great a boon as the rule of Great Britain to a distant people simply on the ground that might makes right. It must have a reason for its course which will command public sympathy. How does it find such reason? Why, by appealing to race distinctions—the idea that the Irish are not capable of self-government; that the only way to promote progress in page 8 Egyptian domains is to carry Christian civilization there at the mouth of English cannon. The superior the rightful guardian of the inferior—that is the central thought in British policy. In our own country we had an example of the same thing in pro-slavery days. The peculiar institution was maintained by Bible authority and by constitutional authority, but many came to feel the need of the authority of Science. Then it was said, the negro cannot be one of us because his facial angle is more acute than ours. On this account, though we may protect him by lifting him from barbarism to slavery, we cannot quite regard him as a man and a brother. This belief and feeling became with us the tap-root of the chattel slave system. And now in these later days, growing out of the same superficial philosophy, all other ground having given way under their feet, we find would-be scientists undertaking to show by measurements of the brain, by the method of differentiation, that women are inferior to men. The subtle poison of this method seems to have inoculated the blood of our societal organism. Most of us are more or less affected by it. It determines our judgment of individuals as well as our judgment of peoples and races. A good friend said to me the other day, Do you like everybody? Like everybody, I said, yes. And she laughed in my face. Well, why should we not like everybody? I do not mean give everybody the same amount of affection. Love is not a ponderable commodity, that it can be cut into slices and parcelled out in that way. But why should any body be inherently disagreeable to us, regardless of what he may say or not say, do or not do? Why should we not have a fellow-feeling, a sort of brotherly feeling, for every human soul? Can any one think of an intelligent reason why? I cannot. I think I see how it happens that we do sometimes dislike each other in this world. It is because we go about with our critical spectacles on, looking for differences; we have eyes quick to detect differences. And whence comes this difference we condemn? Difference from whom and from what? From our dear, blessed selves and the standard we set up. Somebody's hair is longer than mine page 9 or shorter than mine; somebody's culture is of a kind I do not appreciate or somebody lacks all culture; somebody' conducts herself in some way which does not seem quite right or proper to me; therefore somebody is disagreeable, I do not like her. Well, from this small work of estimating individuals, to the great work of classifying races, this same method of emphasizing divergencies has largely prevailed, with what consequences we have seen.

But the flight of time has at last revealed to us a finer method; one that is sure to produce, nay has already produced, finer results. A method, as I believe, destined to furnish a scientific basis for the grandest religious philosophy yet known to man. Within recent years what is called Comparative Philology has taken its place among recognized sciences. The object of this science is to compare the structure of the various languages, with a view to obtaining some theory concerning the origin and growth of language in general. The discovery of Sanscrit, in the opinion of scholars, has resulted in the possibility of making language read to us the history of past races; it has opened the way for an acquaintance with the literature and philosophy of the people of Hindostán; and it has at length indicated, indeed we may say demonstrated, the common origin and characteristics of that people and ourselves. The development of this last point, as stated by Canon Farrar, has led to the recognition of the unity of the great Indo-European race; the proof that all those nations which have been most memorable in the history of the past, and which he thinks must be all but universally dominant in the history of the future, sprang from one common cradle, and are closely united by identity of origin and similarity of gifts. "Fifty years ago," hesays, "few would have believed that Dutch, and Russian, and Icelandic, and Greek, and Latin, and Persian, and Mahratti, and French, were all indubitable developments from one and the same original tongue, and that the common ancestors of the nations who speak them were once living together as an undi page 10 vided family in the same pastoral tents." And yet to-day there is no reasonable doubt of that fact.

Now how has this knowledge been brought about, and what is its significance? It is the conscious or unconscious result of seeking, not differences but likenesses. For example, take our word daughter and the words in the other languages of various branches of the Aryan .family standing for the same thing. Philologists trace them all back to a word used by the parent race signifying milking maid. What does that indicate? Why the probable common origin of all the words, and the fact that the people who used the original word must have been the possessors of flocks to some extent tended by their daughters. When other words are subjected to the same analysis and like results are reached, it becomes evident that mankind is working a new mine, full of the ore of invaluable knowledge, such as has not been given us in previous years. The process has already been carried so far that Farrar says, in his Families of Speech, "The numerals, the pronouns, the most essential verbs, the words for the commonest relationships, for the parts of the body, for nearly all the domestic animals, for many of the cereals, and the most familiar metals, are substantially the same in all the languages of the great Aryan family." By which he means that in spite of the influence of time and foreign admixture, there is a very close similarity in their grammatical structure and an ultimate identity in the vast majority of their roots, such as points with unmistakable clearness to a common origin. The Science of Ethnology, from the old point of view, was a search for variety. In the light and by the method of Comparative Philology it becomes a search for unity in variety. And although still so young, this investigation on the basis of language is already considered the only thoroughly reliable method of race study.

If, now, we consider for a moment the thought underlying the two schemes, we shall readily detect the fundamental difference between them. Suppose we are about to begin the study of Ethnology. We observe certain facts. All men are not of page 11 one color, their heads are not of one shape, their hair varies. These are external facts. But all men must be able to communicate with their fellows, all have speech in common, however rudimentary it may be in form. That is an internal fact, directly connected with the human mind. Is it not easy to see that it will make an immense difference in the character and results, of our study, which of the two classes of facts we make the fundamental ones? That is just what scholars have concluded, and they have decided very largely in favor of the method of Comparative Philology on that account. It is a radical change in the way of treating the race question—this attempt to look for the unities. It has already largely reduced the number of great divisions. Where men have been regarded as aliens it has shown a common ancestry. It has shown how much divergencies of color, contour, etc., are due to environment. No matter when or how the disintegration began, it is the surface facts which have diverged. The skin has grown light or dark, the facial angle has become larger or smaller, the hair has varied, but the lungs, the heart, the stomach, have remained; the nervous and muscular systems, the arteries and veins, these are still possessed in common; and, most wonderful and significant of all, the power of thinking and expressing thought is everywhere present, the link which binds all peoples in a common fraternity.

Well, we have not been able to get back to the garden of Eden or down to the hard pan of the Darwinian hypothesis. But the indications are that the farther we go the more of unity we find, and the deeper we go the more of unity we find. We cannot be certain, perhaps, as to just who our ancestors were, but we may feel reasonably sure that if one mortal was descended from a monkey, all were; and if one mortal has in him something of the old Adam, all have. Unity of origin, that is the fact toward which Science points, and toward which she is fast traveling.

Oh, how the prophetic words of those old dreamers have come down to us through the centuries. Confucius, Buddha, page 12 Seneca, Jesus,—all saw visions of the brotherhood of man. Most of the great souls in all time have received the same inspiration. It has fired the prophet's voice, it has guided the essayist's pen; it has been the poet's muse. In our own time and country what venerated names among our dead are connected with it. Emerson in philosophy, Sumner in statesmanship, Garrison in reform, John Brown on the scaffold, Parker and Channing in the pulpit, Motley in literature, Longfellow in poetry;—these have all been seers foretelling a time when "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." And to-day Science verifies the dream, saying, Of a truth I perceive that the Eternal Order is no respecter of persons; that all mankind are members of one great family, in whom Nature has implanted mutual love. It is not mere speculation now, therefore, to talk of human unity. It is the substantial food and drink of the ideal life.

But when I contemplate my possibilities, when I feel within me a something summoning me to forget what is accomplished in the thought of some grander thing which I am yet to do; when I hear the call to climb higher;—then it is that I feel strong; then it is that Nature's trust in her child fills him with page 13 a sense of bis divinity. It is just so with the race. I do not warm so much on what it has done; the charitable buildings it has erected; the schools it 'maintains; the churches which are its pride;—it is the possibilities which lie before it; it is its sublime impulse to progress which stirs my enthusiasm. And when I remember that all men, without exception, have some opportunity for progress, that all men have a something to which the genius of progress may appeal, then it is that my soul bows in worship at the shrine of a divine humanity. Then it is that I hear the angelic song floating as from the unseen world to my willing ears: "Mankind are one in spirit," it seems to say,—

"Mankind are one in spirit, and an instinct bears along,
Round the earth's electric circle, the swift flash of right or wrong;
Whether conscious or unconscious, yet Humanity's vast frame
Through its ocean-sundered fibres feels the gush of joy or shame;—
In the gain or loss of one race all the rest have equal claim."

To experience such a Religion as that is worth living for and dying for. It makes one feel that he is not a nonentity in a great sea of nonentities, but a spiritual force cooperating with other spiritual forces to make a world. That is the final significance of a divine man; that, the final significance of a divine humanity.

Or are we setting ourselves against the coming king; are we cherishing this day some feeling that retards his progress? How easy it is, if we set out in a fault-finding spirit, to impute bad motives to friends and to criticise, for lack of conformity, or lack of something which we think essential, the people whom page 14 we meet upon the street. I suppose that in about ninety-nine cases out of every hundred where bad motives are imputed wrong is done. And what a rebuke it is to us, when beneath an exterior which we have picked to pieces with merciless sarcasm and ridicule, we find an honest purpose and a warm heart.

A lady of intelligence recently talking with another lady, a stranger, of her immediate ancestry, learned that they were persons of some note,—what is vulgarly termed of good blood. As this point became apparent she exhibited new emotions of interest, exclaiming with a sense of surprised curiosity, "Then you came of good stock, didn't you?" We have all heard of the man who refused to rescue a drowning fellow-mortal because he had not been introduced to him. Probably most of us have felt at some time the gaze of critical eyes, looking us up and down to see if we would do. We do not admire that sort of thing when it comes to the serious business of life. We rightfully think it all wrong. Intellectually, it is superficial; affection ally, it is cold and unfeeling.

Those of us who do common work in some association for the promotion of education, of reform, or of religion, are not all of one degree of taste, of belief, of culture, but the purpose which brings us together is of infinitely greater moment than these external things. It creates a certain sense of unity which could not exist without it. In similar manner, there is a common purpose underlying all human nature, a purpose to grow toward the godlike, which ought to prove the strongest of bonds. We do not all possess this purpose in the same degree, but we all possess somewhat of it. This thought of unity in growth is the sunshine which clears away the mists of prejudice, and melts the icy forms of the spirit of caste;

Are you drawing about you a family? Harmonize its individualities; never antagonize them. Are you interested in some social or religious organization? Conciliate its forces in an honorable devotion to what all affirm. Are you seeking a just state? Demand intelligence if you will in its citizens, but do not emphasize the locality of birth or the condition of the page 15 purse. Subordinate the points of difference; recognize the points of unity; and you will be surprised to find how much of good there is in every human form; how divine, notwithstanding its short-comings, humanity is. "Show me a creature," said Mr. Sumner, "with erect countenance looking to heaven, made in the image of God, and I show you a Man, who of whatever country or race, whether darkened by equatorial sun or blanched by northern cold, is with you a child of the Heavenly Father, and equal with you in title to all the rights of Human Nature.".

Did you ever imagine one of the great musical composers picking his notes as it were from the air, and blending them in a perfect harmony? Did you ever think how the painter uses his colors, reproducing to our vision, under skillful touch and by proper combination, the beauty no longer exclusively Nature's own? Do you realize how the systems of stars and planets sail through space, with multitudinous orbits, and yet all held in unity of purpose by eternal law? Even so I hear in the distance the diviner music, I see the sublimer picture, I behold the not less perfect system of a unified humanity. One by one each individual takes his place; slowly, but surely, the nations and races fall into line. Only one great family at last, animated by a desire for universal justice, dwelling in an atmosphere of universal love. Call it an ideal if you will; it shall yet wrap the world in its angelic forms.