« PreviousContinue »
seems to us to form an exception to the general rule in this creation, of which he is, at the same time, the object and the end.” *
IV. The polygenetic theory of the origin of mankind meets with a formidable objection from theological and moral science. I know that many naturalists repudiate all reference to theology in the discussion of such a question as this. But are they consistent in so doing? They endeavor, as much as possible, to gather weapons from every department of natural science against theology; but when the batteries are turned in reply, they exclaim, " This is a question of science, and theology has nothing to do with it.” But, we may ask, is not theology a science? And though professed theologians differ in regard to many essential doctrines of theology, yet do they differ more than do the naturalists — even the masters — in regard to some of the natural sciences, say, e. g., that of theology?
It is a maxim with scientific men that all the sciences harmonize with each other, and it is always customary to bring facts and illustrations from one to elucidate and confirm another. And it would be . strange, indeed, if theology could shed no light on a
* An account of the geographical distribution of animals, by L. Agassiz, in the Swiss Review, Neufchatel. Quoted by Dr. Bachman, p. 248.
question so directly concerning a religious being. We admit that man is an animal, but he is a moral and religious animal. And having discussed the subject, as we properly may, in its purely natural aspects, by whose dictum shall we be debarred from considering it also in its supernatural, its religious aspects ? Such an objection finds no warrant in true science, which looks for truth wherever it is to be found.
Two points here merit our attention. Whatever be the characteristics that make man a moral and religious being, they are possessed in common by all races of men. These characteristics are the power of speech, the moral sense, the æsthetic faculty, etc. I do not say that all races, in their rude condition, have these in a like degree, but that they all possess them. Not a people on the globe has been found so degraded that these qualities, under the influence of Christian missions, have not been developed among them. Of course teaching does not create them. It merely calls into exercise qualities which previously existed, though, in some cases, in almost a dormant state. In the fact that man thus possesses a moral nature, he stands apart from the entire animal creation besides, and constitutes a single distinct species.
The other fact is, that all men sustain a like rela
tion to God and his government. All are in a fallen and morally debased state, and need redemption and salvation. And it is a doctrine of Christian theology, that Jesus Christ is a divine Redeemer for all. Now, this fact can not be adjusted to the theory oi a plurality of origin without doing violence to the piainest teachings of the New Testament. By one inan sin entered into the world, and the race became a fallen race; by one man also salvation is provided, and its blessings are opened to all. The very fact of the common relation of all men to Adam, their parental head, is made the type and the ground of their similar common relation to Christ, the second Adam, the Saviour of the world.*
We conclude, then, that Ethnology, in its physiological aspects, concurs with history as respects the unity of the race. She presents to us no facts which are inconsistent with that unity.; she finds nothing in the analogies from the lower races of animals which does not illustrate and confirm it.
* Rom. v. 12-19; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, 45.
THE ARGUMENT FROM LANGUAGE.
The Hebrew formerly believed to have been the Primitive Lan
guage. — Discovery of the Sanskrit, and its Effects. — Views of Stewart and Lord Monboddo. - Labors of Sanskrit Scholars. — Key to the Classification of Indo-European Languages. – Three great Families. — I. The Aryan. — II. The Semitic. - III. The Turanian. – Classification according to Structure. – Monosyllabic, Agglutinative, and Inflectional. — Bearing of the Diversity of Languages on the Argument. – 1. The Miraculous “Confusion of Tongues.” — 2. Languages have much in common between them. – 3. Differences diminish as our Knowledge increases. — 4. Languages undergo rapid Changes. — Conclusion.
SCARCELY three fourths of a century have elapsed since the belief prevailed almost universally that the Hebrew was the primitive language of mankind, and that all other languages have been derived from it. If we go back one or two centuries more, we arrive at a time when this opinion was quite universal. According to Professor Müller, Leibnitz was "the first who really conquered the prejudice that Hebrew
the lapse of time, yet all the existing races had . reached their present types at the very beginning of the historic period, within a very few centuries, at most, of the flood — a space much too short to have developed the differences between them. Representations both of men and animals are found on the oldest monuments of Egypt and Assyria, which show all the diversities now existing among different nations. Even then, if we concede the common origin of men, we are compelled to throw it so far back in time as to be wholly inconsistent with the Mosaic chronology.
To this allegation Dr. Bachman well replies. that the monumental figures referred to are too rude and imperfect to have any real value in the argument.
· "The reduced figures in Nott and Gliddon we have not
compared with the originals. Taking them, however, just as they are presented to the reader, and presuming them to be faithful copies, we have no hesitation in saying that, for all the purposes of the naturalist in the designation of species or varieties, the figures of animals on the monuments are entirely valueless, and can not advance him a single step in a science which requires the closest accuracy. ... Let us only look at the figures on a single page, the 388th of • Nott and Gliddon's Types,' and then inquire what lights these would afford is in the .