180 



NLG.i: ETII.XOLOGICAE. 



as a transcript from the sculptured records of primeval hieroglyphical 

 monuments, does not agree with Fabre- d' Olivet, in considering Adam 

 generic, but limits the creation to a single pair. This, as is well knovvn, 

 is the opinion of theologians in general. More light is wanted on the 

 subject, and I can conceive of no more useful task of a profound linguist 

 than tlie investigation of this difficulty. 



If the view here indicated be correct, we are to understand the Scrip- 

 tures as teaching nothing more than that mankind was formed from the 

 dust of the earth, by an effort of the Divine Will, at a particular point 

 in the creative series, and that point the last, and therefore, the highest, 

 because the series is evidently progressive in importance and excellence. 

 The subject is therefore, an open one to the naturalist, and remains to 

 be determined by proper physical and psychological researches. These 

 cannot, of course, prove the origin from a single pair; neither will his- 

 tory help us here. The remarks of Adelung, quoted by Mr. Lawrence, 

 sufficiently establish this point. The late discoveries in Egyptian arch- 

 aeology, only show us the existence of the present diversities at a date 

 prior to all profane history hitherto known. But ethnographical science 

 can establish, if I am not mistaken, a point of equal importance, because 

 involving the same inferences. Jt is the specific identity of all the fam- 

 ilies of men, and the separation of man from the rest of the animated 

 creation by a wide and impassable chasm. I have seen as yet, no evi- 

 dence of diversity which any unprejudiced naturalist would consider 

 sufficient to establish a difference of species among the inferior animals. 

 As to the cause of the diversities which do exist, I believe, that there 

 are abundant data to prove this position — thai the ordinary physical for- 

 ces daily produce differences of form and color in the animated creation 

 under our eyes, infinitely greater than any ichich are found among the 

 various irihes of men. Admit this, and I assert again, that we have no 

 right to alledge more or greater causes than suffice for the production of 

 a given effect, and that it is unphilosophical to presume an original dif- 

 ference or a miraculous transformation, when the ordinary forces of mat- 

 ter are amply sufficient to account for the phenomena in question. We 

 can, therefore, establish the unity of the species even if we give up the 

 Scriptural authority for it. 



It will be seen that in the above remarks, I have not resorted to the 

 flood to disprove any conclusions that might be derived from a suppo- 

 sed original creation of the varieties. I have not done so, because it is 

 abundantly evident that the family of Noah includes only the three 

 great branches of the Caucasian variety, and that the Scripture account 

 IS conlined to them. The gradual narrowing down of the Bible narra- 



