of inhabitants."

These aboriginal races, often

designated the pre-historic, but whom I would rather name the un-historic nations, prove, it is claimed, "the primitive ubiquity of mankind upon earth," and refute both the unity and the recent origin of the human family.

We think this statement, as is usual with objections of this kind, exaggerated. We know of no evidence to show the fact so universal as is alleged. Where is the "positive record of a people having migrated far," and not having "found countries entirely destitute of inhabitants"? The Pelasgians claimed to have been autochthons in Greece, though certainly having emigrated from Asia. We have never seen any evidence, or even allegation, that the ancient Egyptians did not consider themselves autochthons in the valley of the Nile. But without insisting on this, we may freely concede the reality of these so called aboriginal races without any detriment to the authority of the sacred record.

For, first, Scripture language in general statements is not always to be pressed to a rigidly literal meaning. Such a general statement is that of Gen. ix. 19: "These are the three sons of Noah, and of them was the whole earth overspread." This may be taken literally, as, until recently, has always

* Christian Examiner, March, 1850.

been done, or its application may be limited to the "Adamite race," whose creation had just been recorded, and whose history is given in the subsequent portions of the sacred writings, without either affirming or denying the existence of another race not descended from Adam. The latter interpretation, though less obvious than the former, is certainly consistent with usage in other parts of the Bible. For example, the statement in Luke ii. 1, that "there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." Also, Matt. iii. 5, that there" went out to him [John] Jerusalem and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan.". These statements are certainly to be understood in a sense more restricted than the literal one. Numerous other passages of a similar kind might be cited. Such being the case, the truthfulness of the Mosaic account, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, would not necessarily be impaired should it be proved that there has existed a race or races of men descended neither from Noah nor Adam. There are distin-, guished scholars who maintain the polygenetic origin of mankind, and endeavor to prove it from the Bible, believing that such an interpretation is consistent with the truthfulness of the sacred narrative.*

But without resorting to this possible view of the

* Page 170.

matter,

one in which I must, by no means, be understood to concur, it is sufficient to say that if history does not, in the case of these nations now under consideration, establish their descent from Noah, neither, on the other hand, does it disprove it. The argument is at best a negative one, and determines nothing. If the Scripture narrative" lacks confirmation as respects them, it is because there are no sufficient historical data in the case. At the same time these facts create a strong probability in favor of including these nations within the comprehension of the sacred record. If this be found to be literally true as respects all the nations whose history is known, the presumption is irresistible that it must be true respecting those whose history is unknown.

There is still another view which I deem more satisfactory; indeed, I see not why it does not meet all the exigencies of the case. It is conceded by all that the ancestors of the Semitic and Indo-European races remained together in their primitive seats longer than did those of the Turanian families; and some of the greatest scholars in comparative philology explain the diversity of language between these races by the supposition of an earlier departure of the latter from those seats. It has, indeed, been the common opinion that the whole race re

mained together in the region around Babylon till the confounding of their language, as described in the eleventh chapter of Genesis; and this, certainly, is the most obvious import of the record. But as I have already said, such is the use of general, comprehensive terms in the Bible, that there is nothing to forbid the idea of repeated earlier separations of colonies from the primitive seat, and their migration to different parts of the earth. The following extract gives the views of one of the most accomplished ethnographers, Sir Henry Rawlinson, on this point:

"It must have been during this interval," referring to what he denominates the "Ante-Semitic Period," "that the nationalities must have been established, and that the original Scyths or Hamites appear to have been the principal movers in this great work of social organization. They would seem, indeed, simultaneously or progressively to have passed, in one direction, by Southern Persia into India; in another, through Southern Arabia to Ethiopia, Egypt, and Numidia. They must have spread themselves, at the same time, over Syria and Asia Minor, sending out colonies from one country to Mauritania, Sicily, and Iberia; from the other, to the southern coasts of Greece and Italy. They further, probably, occupied the whole area of modern Persia, and, thence proceeding to the north of Chalcis and the Caucasus, they penetrated to the extreme northern point of the European and Asiatic con

tinents. It is well known to ethnographers that the passage of the Scyths is to be traced along these lines either by direct historical tradition or by the cognate dialects spoken by their descendants at the present day; and it is further pleasing to remark, that if we were to be guided by the mere linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led to fix upon the plains of Shinar as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.

"When I propose to class the multitude of nations here indicated in a common category, I do not pretend that a connection can be established between them by direct historical evidence, or by any positive test of philology. All that I maintain is, that certain special ethnic names have everywhere prevailed amongst them, and that either from ancient monuments, or from tradition, or from the dialects now spoken by their descendants, we are authorized to infer that, at some very remote period before the rise of the Semitic and Aryan nations, a great Scythic population must have overspread Europe, Asia, and Africa, speaking languages all more or less dissimilar in their vocabulary, but possessing similarity in certain common organic characteristics of grammar and construction." *

I have quoted this opinion of Rawlinson - which more strictly belongs to the argument from Philology because it so clearly enunciates the fact of

*Notes on the early history of the Babylonians. — Journal Roy. Asiatic Soc., vol. xv. p. 232.