NATURAL HISTORY OF MAN". 473 



have it in our hands, is rarely capable of conducting us to 

 the solution of this great question, seen dimly through the 

 mists of time, and often rather obscured than enlightened by 

 human tradition. The line, variously broken and interrupted 

 before, stops where the more arduous part of the enquiry 

 begins, and gives us no guidance into the ages beyond. 



We might much enlarge, were it needful, on this inca- 

 pacity of History to satisfy our just curiosity as to the 

 primitive condition of the human race on earth. But we 

 shall confine ourselves to a few general remarks, such as may 

 obviate misconception as to the value of this part of the 

 evidence. In placing them here, we deviate from the order 

 just laid down; but we do this purposely, that attention 

 may be better concentrated afterwards on the other topics, 

 on which the solution of the enquiry chiefly depends. 



We have already spoken generally of the bearing of sacred 

 history on this subject. In the Old Testament we have a 

 record of the creation of Man upon the earth, and of a line 

 of successive generations down to the period of the Deluge ; 

 from which we are taught to date a second growth and 

 dispersion of mankind. But it would wrong the proper 

 objects and influence of Scripture to regard it as a physical 

 history of Man, or to seek in its pages for the facts with 

 which this science has especial concern. A few passages 

 only can be brought to bear directly on the conclusions we 

 seek to obtain; and there is constant danger, as well as 

 difficulty, in tampering with words and phrases so alien in 

 their objects and manner of use. The Mosaic writings are 

 the record of the origin and progress of one people, won- 

 derful in every age of its history, and by the dispensation 

 of Providence signal in its influence on the human race. All 

 that is given to us, apart from this main object, is incidental, 

 brief, and obscure. The chronology of the Jewish people 

 itself is rendered ambiguous by. the recognised differences of 



