OCR Text |
Show 41G THE MONOGENISTS AND literature), I would cndc:wor, whilst striving to emulate oue anonymous author's cl1arity and goou Laslo, to h~y before his acum n proofs that, wit.h motives most laudable anu utility unquestionable, he has tried to reconciLe two things which surpass r coHciliation; and, thor Core, that his praiseworthy labors will, unhappily, sntil:lf'y neither the exigencies of natural science, on tho one hanu, nor those of rigid Hebraism, of the modern school, on the other. Yet, us a spccitncn of his propositions, I cannot rcii:aiu from the extract of a passacrc or two.36 "The narrative with which the Dible commences, ending with the third verse of the second chapt t·, is clistingnishcd from tlmt which immediately follows it, as the latter narrative also is from the third not merely by the name giv n therein to Deity, but in scvm·al othe; rcspo ts .. Its most rcm~Lrl~ablc characteristic is t.Jtis: that it altogether conststs of a descnptton of events which could not have been witnessed by any human b i ng. [11ft is is precisely tlte. vir!w above talcen b.'lf tlte IluMUOLDl'R.] Every one, therefore, who admits tho Lr~t~h of the Bible,. wllatcvct· be his opinion of some other portions of 1t, must hold tlns narrative to be a revelation. "Now, we find that revelations of this kind, of which the subjects arc events, were generally conveyed in representations to the sigltt; and hc~cc, by ~he eafcs~ and most legitimate mode of judcring, by c~mpann~ cr1pturc Wttlt Scripture [a sort of reasoning witltin a czrcle], w arc led to the conclusion, that tho nanativo under our con.si.d mtion is most ptobably the relation of a revelation by means of a ~tswn, or rathm· a series of visions." * * * "Tho passag 8 j 11 tho B1bl~ wl1ich arc commonly rccrardcd as deciding the question respocilng. the un.ity of the origin of the human species, demand a rever. nt1al cauiton of this kind [i. c., 'until we have wei o·hcd all the e~rcum tanccs of th? oaso'-antecedent paragraph] in him who cxam1ncs th?m: ~or wh1lc these apparently indicate the oricrination of _all mankmcl ir~m a sincrlo pair of ancestors, there ar~ others wl~1c~ apr at·cntly 1mply the existence of human b ings not tho ofis1r~ng of ~dam." * * * "If we rccrard Adam as the iirst of all manhnd, tins general view of the origin and development of language (Chcv'. Bunsen's), supposillg it to be admitted, obliges us to roduco a g·~·cat part of tho history of the book of Genesis to the category of faulty and vague traditions, as we have before obI:! Orvcd." * * * Now, with every dcfcrcnco, before exhibiting such contradictions t~ t~H~ ey.cs of the simple believer, and deducing therefrom several (hsbnct hncagcs of tho first men, would it not be the most prudent ae Ome8i8 of the Earth, &o. (Hupr~); pp. 1-2, 11-2, 10, 4.3-4, aud 181-2. 'I.'IIE POLYGENISTS. 4]7 and natural step, on the part of archroologists, to ascertain previously the relative age, writer, and peculiaTities, of ach given document? I cannot find. Llmt out· author has tak n th se precautions; 1Jnt I read,-" tlt existence of -prc-Adamitcs, without a revelation, if.! surely less wonderful Lhan Lhe i~tet that tlte1·o have b en, and still arc, postAdamitcs without it." * * * "'l'hcsc pa sag s, thoucrh r concilalJIC with the general opinion rcs1 cLing the origination of all mankind, seem mt1wr to indicate the existence of nations not of the same race as the dose •ndunts of Adam, aud 110t destroyed by the flood, and the partition of tb lands of the former among certain colonies of the latter; ancl an argument in ihvor of this inC renee may be drawn from il1o fact that the appellation here rendered 'tho nations' ('haggoyim'), in other instances, which arc very numerous, generally, and pcrhar s always, d notes tho natioHs exclusive of tLo pcorle of God, or of tl1c Isra lites; wherefore it is often render d, iu the auLllol·izcd v rHion, 'the Gentiles' and 'tho boathon.' J(' so, we may suppose that tho confusion of tongues was a couscqu 11 • , not the cunsc, of tho disporl:lion from l3al>ol. 'l'ltc whole of the tenth chapter of' G 1t sis sec1ns to be par·entltetic." ".J. aronthctically," as applied to "" rth Gcu si , is an adverb which, so fat· as my limited r ading of .English biblical criticism extends, first occurs in a little work in some slight degree connected witl1 my formct· studio .:10 It is gt·aLifyincr to find its con •ctncss now cnuorsc<l; und still more to per civc, that tLe admi:l:!ion of Lho aboriginal plurality of Human Races, sustained h rc in Am rica by the MorLonian school, compels Eno·lish scl10hLr·s so to modify their interpretations of king James' version, as to make tho diver·sity-<loctrino harmo11izo with tho cripturcs-or vice versa. For my own part, I congmtulato both author and editor on their ingenious and ingenuous method of smoothing a pathway for the eventual recognition, in England, of our common polygcnistic vi ws. Orthodox in trcatm nt, if passably heretical in issuos-suaviter· in modo, fort£ter· in r·e-" The Genesis of the Earth and of Mau" will per olato unobtrusively into the Scottish as well as tho English mind; in vitably and spco<lily awak rring echoes, of surpassing benefit to Ethnology, which books of heavier calibre could not hope to ronsc up, amid such iutolle ·tnal condilio11S, iu a contuey! Its publishers, therefore, uccd not sigh with BYRON, "For lllrougll a needle it ea1ier for a camel i3 To pass, tlw11 tllis small cant-o into families." 16 Otia ./Egypliaca, London, 8vo., M~ddcu, 1840; p. 141 :-ropriutecl fro111 Lu K~I Bumo~·~ Etlmological Joumal, J,ontlon, 1848-0; nne! cnlorgccl upon in Types of Jlfankind, Pltiladclphi~ ~ttcl London, 4to. and 8vo., 1864; pp. 466-656. 27 |