OCR Text |
Show 598 TIIE MONOGENISTS AND the Doctor and myself for open statement of our common ethnological opinionA: and it is, truly, in perfect harmony with the literary probity manifested-by every theologer who may have experienced some cutis anserina whilst perusing "Types of Mankind "-which has not merely prevented a,ny one of them from honestly mentioning wltere he learned that Cbev. Lopsius 003 "proclaimed" his now very unbiassed sentiments on "the doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race,"but which has been unable to impede Dr. N ott and myself from responding to the wide and loud calls [see Alpltabetical List of Subscribers, infra] for another and a stronger book, through the same Publishers, announced as the Earth's "Indigenous Races." Tho subjoined remarks, by our ever-valued colleague Mn. LuKE BunKE,564 have already put a direct question to any man who voluntarily adventures into the ethnological arona after this year of our XIXth century: whilst "old, and musty" TERENCE 566 supplies me with all I need repeat in the premises ·- "Si mihi pergit quoo vult dicere, ea quoo non vult audiet." There still remains, in order to group together all the preceding arguments into a "corps de doctrine," the very subject which suggested my epigraph to this chapter, viz., "the monogenists and the polygenists." What deduction will either school draw from the present accumulation of facts? Time only can show. For my own part, I have met with no reason to emend, or change, tho position taken in the last course of lectures delivered in New Orleans,566 as regards my individual opinions on the unity or diversity of humau origin. It was the following: 663 Type& of Mankind, p. 233. Whilst these pages are being stereotyped, I have agnin a fresh and welcome P;?of of tho Chevalier's kind reminiscence, through the reception of his most recent work-Uber die Goller der Vier Elemente bei dm A.gyplern, Derlin, 4to., 1856. 11M "Does he speak as n theologian, or docs he speak ns a mnn of science? If as n theologian, he may argue in pence to the end of tho chnptor, we shnll not cnro to disturb him; but if bo clnims to reason as n scientific man, then we expect that ho shnll submit to the laws of science; then wo oonPider ourselves privileged to judge him by the rules of common eenso. Then he must be reminded that those who live in glass houses ought not to throw atones, and that those who u~o theology to pinion scientific mon within hopeless dilemmns, may find in the end that it is leas difficult than they supposed to turn the tables upon them· solves; for assuredly, if scientific men were only to rouse themselves to tho same zeal nnd love of conquest which nnimnte theologians, there would soon rnin down upon theology such a pitiless storm, as would require stronger brains to weather than any we have at tho present do.y to contend with."- 0/wrle&/on JJ!edical Journal and Rtview, Charleston, S. C., July, 1856, X, No.4, Art. 1, "Strictures," p. 444. 663 TER., Andr., V. iv., 17. *On" Ethnology-Egypt's testimony"-Oth lecture (of 15) delivered before tho Lyceum of the Second Mal\ioipality, Feb. 20, 1852:- Now Orleans "Dnily Cre~oont," ·Fob. 21. TIIE POLYGENISTS. 59!) " Some years of association with Dr. Morton [since 1852 confirmed "by almost-constant investigation of the problem for myself] have "gradually led me to the conviction:- "1st, that every argument hitherto brought forward on the 't _ "s'1d e .1 s e1'th e r refuted or refutable ; but that umy "2d, whilst the reasonings in favor of the diversity-view preponde:: rate greatly over those against it, I do not, nevertheless, hold the latter to be, as yet, absolutely proven. " "Lest such assertion s~oul~ appear ~aradoxical, I would explain, -that the proofs of dwerszty are ch1efly of a negative character· ::and, o~ the ot~er h.and, these questions being still 'sub judice,: some d1scovery m scwnce, now unforeseen, may hereafter establish " unity upon a certain basis." It is not, however [as the reader of our last work can well understand], from any submissiveness towards dictates emanatinO' from the theocratical point of view, that I consider the dogmatic ar;ument to stand, down to the present moment and in all the works known to me, among those propositions hitherto unrefuted. Want of space alone 567 prevented further publication, of MSS. which covered biblical ethnology, on that occasion; and the arrangement of the several chapters ~f this volume. has equally precluded (save in respect to Acts) c~ntm_uance ~f scnptural branches of inquiry on the present. In the mter1m, dunng more recent studies in Europe, I have been enabled to collect former desiderata that, some day, may find uttera~ ce in matured shape; when asseverations in support of monogcmsm, grounded upon the T11xtus receptus whether of Old or New Testaments, shall be critically examined. P~rsevering consistently to the end in that method of quotation prev1ously announced [supra, p. 403], it is with three extracts from works of our living contemporaries that I submit, to others, the thoughts and ideas in which I participate, couched in language far superior to that through which I might have endeavored to express them. They are emanations of tho French mind in our pending age; each differing from the two others as concerns the subject whence it takes its point of departure, but all uniting in grandeur of sentiment, eloquence of diction, and truthfulness of utterance. "Strange destiny that of theology! That of being condemned never to attach herself except to systems which arc already crumbling down: that of being, through her essence, the enemy of every new science and to all progress. Yes,-she foresaw that a day would come to dethrone her,-this theology, this sacerdotal science-when, during 667 TypeJ of JJ/a11kind, pp. 62G-7. |