[6] “All monogenists,” we said in the first edition of this book. M. de Quatrefages has exclaimed loudly against these words (_Unité de l’Espèce Humaine_, 1861, p. 299), and in the same passage has shown himself an open enemy to all mingling of religion in the domain of science. We are too glad of this declaration not to recall it in this place. We should be sorry not to be able always to agree in these pages with the masters of science,--with those, indeed, who have been our own. We have been led to touch on several questions already treated of by them, by following another path,--by looking at facts from another point of view; therefore, there are some differences of opinion. Our excuse lies in the universal right of free inquiry; for the rest, we shall always name the persons with whom we think we do not agree. “Not to do so,” as Bayle said, “is in some measure an excess of ceremony prejudicial to the liberty which we ought to enjoy in the republic of letters; it is to introduce therein works of supererogation. It should be always allowable to name those whom we disprove; this is sufficient to prevent a bitter, injurious, or dishonest spirit.”--_Dictionnaire Philosophique_, art. _Pereira_, note D. [7] É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire has not, however, been able to free himself completely from the unhappy influences which we endeavour to oppose. See _Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences_, vol. iv, p. 78. [8] “It is too evident,” says a modern philosopher, “that in the eyes of science, which, reasoning about discoveries, makes a rule to admit nothing as a theory which cannot be proved by experience, the agreement of faith with reason is a chimera: to speak more exactly, such a problem does not exist. The conditions of science are the observation of facts,--not of facts exceptionally produced, seen by chance, noted by privileged witnesses, and unable to be reproduced at will; but constant facts, placed under one’s hand for observation, and always able to be verified. We must consider that religion can in no way submit to such exigencies, and that the faith which it proclaims must be, _in this light_, radically inconsistent.”--P. J. Proudhon, _De la Justice_, vol. ii, p. 309. See also on this subject, L. Fleury, _Le Progrès_, 1858, No. 4, p. 92. De Jouvencel, _Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie_, May 2, 1861. [9] See Bertillon, _Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie_, June 18, 1863. [10] _The Natural History of the Human Species_, 1848, p. 40. [11] Kaempfer, _Histoire Naturelle, etc., du Japon_, Lahaye, 1729, vol. i, p. 75. [12] Marcel de Serres, _De l’Unité de l’Espèce Humaine: Bib. Univ. de Genève_, new series, vol. liv, 1844, p. 145.