6

66

Genesis, chapter xi., verses 1, 2_“And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them; that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose."

Dr. Smyth explains that the “sons of God” are to be understood as the sons of Seth, Enos, and other pious patriarchs, separated from the posterity of Cain, and who found the visible Church. The same, he says, are “called by the name of the Lord,” (Genesis iv., 26,) while others are merely termed men, and their daughters, the “ daughters of men.' In allusion to their cruelty, he supposes these men are called “ giants, (Genesis, vi., 4,) i. e, fallen or apostates. This is altogether a forced interpretation, and especially objectionable from one who insists so strenuously on the strict and literal interpretation of the other parts of this historical account. We have no reason to doubt that the men termed

giants” were so designated on account of great stature and enormous strength, making them the terror of other men. This accords with the early history and traditions of all nations, which are replete with stories of giants and terrible men, which, with all their fabric of exaggeration, are not doubted to have a groundwork of truth. The early existence of any nation, is a time peculiarly favorable to the production of such characters, and we know certainly that they have appeared at later times, and even in our own day. But if we deny they were real giants, we have precisely the same reason to deny the records of antediluvian longevity. The phrase sons of God," is understood by some to refer to the angels, or some superior beings, who were seduced to earth by the beauty of the daughters of men,” but this is more fanciful than probable.

As the whole species are assumed to have descended from Adam, it is again asserted that they also all came from Noah in the second instance. The proof in this case is, however, even less decisive than in the first. It is by no means clear that the whole face of the earth was swept by the deluge. Dr. John Pye Smyth has written a very able work to prove that the deluge was limited to a small part of the world, so that other families besides Noah's escaped. Other writers have maintained the same opinion with much force and ingenuity. But we are not disposed to labor much on this point, as it is quite unnecessary: Whichever way it may be decided, this matter of the deluge, as we shall presently have occasion to show, will sweep down some at least of the pillars of our author's superstructure,

Thus we see there is nothing in the Bible, so far as that book is brought into the inquiry, that proves against us even the starting point,—the original unity. For all that the Bible decides to the contrary, there may have been ten pairs of human beings created directly by the Almighty as well as one.

But as we have said, it is not our intention to press that point. We shall argue for no more than is necessary to our theory. We will draw no distinctions that can be avoided, being as anxious as Dr. Smyth himself to bring the races as far within a common brotherhood as the case admits. We have re-opened the question which it had been attempted to close by a false judgment, and we are now ready to pursue the inquiry in a proper spirit. If the unity of origin were necessarily connected with the unity of races, afterward, it would be important to bring this point fully forward; but as such is not the case, we gladly waive any effort to prove that the races of the human kind are descended

重

from more than one original man. Farther than this, we are willing, following the inclination of our sympathies, to concede that all the indecisive circumstances taken together, of the language of the sacred history, the universal prevalence of the effects of Adam's sin,-the universal adaptation of the gospel-the assumed geological marks of the universality of the deluge-the traditions said to be found very generally among nations and tribes, of the leading events of the Mosaic historythe dignity of our nature (here simply an aspiration of man's) above that of the animals, who are generally admitted to have proceeded from multiplied creations, and the non-necessity for any purposes of replenishing the earth, of the creation of more than one human pair-though these aggregately combine nothing like proof, may, in the absence of positive proof on the other side, be admitted to give the weight of plausibility, or even probability to the theory, that all men descended primarily from Adam, and afterwards from Noah.

The investigation comes, then, immediately to the Difference at present observable between the several races, (or branches of the one race, if the term is preferred,) and we are to decide whether the types created by these differences are radical and inconvertible, or are accidental and susceptible of erasure. We believe the testimony before us gives clear and unequivocal proof that these differences are permanent as the race itself, and that we are therefore inevitably forced to the belief, that at some period, during the progress of human propagation, constitutional and ineradical differences were introduced, by which the original family was as effectively severed into distinct races as if they had proceeded from different stocks. We shall prove this, by the nature of the distinctions, as they open to our understanding, and by at least the suggestive evidence of the Bible.

The time of this division we must place far back in the early ages, as we have the positive testimony of history to the existence of the present varieties back to a very remote period-very nearly to the time of Noah. Now, if we refer to the Scripture for anything suggestive of such an event, at or near that time, we find, first, the curse of Canaan-Genesis, chap. ix. v. 25,-" And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." It has been generally supposed that the black race is descended of Canaan, though the opinion is somewhat questioned at this day. Thus, much connection, at the least, may be established between the prediction of Noah and the condition and characteristics of the blacks that the curse denounced slavery upon the children of Canaan, and implied an odious distinction between them and the descendants of Shem and Japheth. Now, as far as we have any certain history of the black race, it has always been held in slavery; and the physical features which distinguish it from the white and other races, in the estimation of them all, and even of the negro himself, positively degrade him below them. But we are not anxious to press this point.

Genesis x. 25.-"And unto Eber were born two sons; the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided." What is the meaning of this division? Does it mean more than a dividing of the land, or not? It appears to us it must have meant much more than this. We must bear in mind, that these people had, like the men of this day, the faculty of acquisitiveness, or desire of isolated individual possession, and all the other selfish and vicious propensities which prompt men to commit injustice to each other, and create disorder in society. Indeed, their evil dispo

sitions are manifested in the next chapter, in a design so impious and daring, as to demand a special and most remarkable interposition of God. It cannot, therefore, be supposed that Noah's descendants had lived in common until this period, owning the land together, and dividing its yield fairly to their mutual support. Only an innocent and purely simple people might live in that manner, but such a system can never exist among à people of active evil propensities, or among one at all advanced in civilization and the arts of life, as the Bible shows us these people were, to a considerable extent, long before this time. It is the very nature of unjust dealing among men to make them all anxious to have their own rightful substance separated from that of others, that they may have better guardianship over it. And as the progress of civilization not only stimulates, but is itself chiefly the result of growing acquisitiveness in the individuals of a nation, its tendency to a division of property is inevitable.

The division of the land must have occurred quietly and continuously with the progress of the race and the acquirement of settled habits; and until kings arose, and arrived at that degree of power, when they would claim the right of disposing of the land, each man would take according to his necessities, from unoccupied grounds, and there would be none who could pretend to arrange the " division." The owpership of the kings or communities would grow up in the same gradual way, so that in any view, the division of the land must have been a gradual and quiet event, and could not have marked the era of any one man. But the “division” referred to by the Bible, differs from all this; its mention in the midst of a genealogical register, shows it to have been a memorable event. It took place at a period wholly within the life of one man, and seems to have been a sudden and remarkable change of the state of things, until then existing.

But we have, in fact, positive evidence of the division of the land long previous to this time. Cain builded a city--Jabel was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle (iv. 20). This mention of a remarkable distinction in the mode of dwelling, joined with that of pursuit, is sufficient to show that they formed a distinct community, probably a more or less civilized one than the others. The “ kingdom” of Nimrod, (x. 10,) is also proof that the mere earth was long before parcelled, the limits of his domains being assigned and recognized by others. There can be little doubt, that the word refers to the division” occasioned by the confusion of tongues, of which the history is given in the next chapter, Let us now see what was comprehended in that event.

Chap. xi. v. 1749.The confusion of languages gives us positive testimony that God did at least, at or near the period in question, effect by a miracle one great change in the nature and condition of men.

A change of language, producing a number of essentially different tongues where but one existed before, involves of necessity very material changes in other respects than the mere alteration of spoken sounds. To effect no more than that change, it was necessary that there should be radical changes of the mental action,—the feelings, sympathies, desires, &c. It is a fully established fact, known to all proficients in physiology, that the character of sounds made by any person, are the result of his peculiar organization. The prevalence of certain tastes, dispositions, propensities, feelings, &c., regulate the expression of the voice, and not merely the inflexion of sound;

but they would determine the kind of words which that individual would combine, if he undertook to invent a language. We see this fact clearly illustrated in the comparison of the language of any nation with the characteristics of the people speaking it. The tongue of a barbarous and rough people is always harsh and dissonant,—of a civilized and polished race always flowing and harmonious; and all the various phases of character are represented by their exactly corresponding shades in the language.

The mental change, then, necessary to produce this utter confusion of languages, must have been very deep and strong-a modification of the whole current of feelings, emotions, desires, and opinions. The narration of the Bible shows conclusively that the whole purpose of the Almighty was effected by the simple act of confusing their tongues. The separation was then effected of their own spontaneous desires. Their sympathies had before led them to hold together as one," and to have great common objects to which their energies were unitedly applied. But now this strong feeling was dissolved-their homogenity was gone. They abandoned their common schemes, and felt averse to living together. A mere change in language, if such could have been made alone, would not have altered their social sympathies. On the contrary, we know that it is the disposition of men to congregate more closely under the pressure of sudden evils, especially if they be of an alarming character, and seek mutual aid. As when now, people of different languages, or those having no language, meet, they would have soon made themselves understood by each other; and in a brief period would have learned their languages, interchangeably, as their descendants have done, and finally would have commingled and fabricated of the whole, a common language, as was done by the Normans and Saxons, our ancestors, and by many other nations. We can determine this point with certainty, as we know our progenitors were men like ourselves, having all our faculties; we know, also, that the principle which produced the confusion of tongues remains in force to this day, subject, equally with other principles of our nature, to measurement and comprehension. Nothing can be better proved, than that the new disposition to separate, and not merely to part, but to scatter themselves "abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth," was the effect of a deep and radical change of mental organization.

So great a change of mental habit inevitably produced a corresponding change of the modes of action; for it is clear to every one, that people will act just according to their mental processes. The habits of life were therefore changed-a variety of modes of living, pursuits and objects, corresponding to the variety of tongues, must have prevailed. The articles of food, the fashions and substance of dress, the modes of erecting houses, cultivating the earth-of performing all kinds of mechanism, must have changed. And, finally, there must have grown up as many varied forms of the social state-as many different kinds of government, and as many phases of civilization or barbarism.

Now, it is impossible that any such radical changes of mind, or of habits of life should occur, without producing as remarkable physical changes. This is so well understood, that we need not dwell much on this point. We have it, then, established, as we think, too plainly to admit of question, that the confusion of languages was accompanied by very remarkable changes of mental organization, habits of action and physical

characteristics, more remarkable than any that could be effected by climate, education, and all other causes combined. Now, if the differences before us for investigation are the most remarkable differences we know of in men,-and if, beside, they have that partial distribution to place and climate which induces the belief with some of these circumstances being their cause, while we see that the miracle of old was intended expressly to scatter them over all the earth, and as certainly as God is a provident being, and the race survived the dispersion, to adapt them to all the climates and circumstances of the earth-seeing this so plainly, how can we avoid the conclusion, that it was at this time and by this miracle, that those varieties of the race, or a portion of them at least, were created, which we now see in the world?

It is about the time of this confusion of tongues, and the consequent dispersion of the race, that we hear first of the distinction of color in the race. The information is then given us of the existence of black men, by profane history; and if we believe the distinctions of race to have been created at that time, we then add one more to the remarkable verifications of Scripture which are derived from uninspired history. But the entire absence of all mention of any such distinctions in the record preceding that of the confusion of languages, is good presumptive evidence of the Scripture itself in favor of our opinion, in addition to that derived from the account of that event. Had there been the present variety of men living together in the families of Adam and Noah, prior to that time, it must not only have been mentioned as a matter of interest by the historian, but it could hardly have been excluded by actual design, so as to have left a faithful and intelligible history. Moses has thought proper to inform us, that God made woman beautiful;--that the "daughters of men" were so "fair" as to attract the love of the "sons of God;"-that there were differences in physical stature and strength; has explained to us the peculiarities of certain people,-informed us of the mode of living, occupation and kind of property of some, and it seems to us now impossible that had distinctions existed, which of necessity must exercise such remarkable influences on the characters, social and civil relations, and pursuits of men, that he should have designed or forgotten its mention. And had he done so, still we are certain that the differences would have told their own story by their regular propagation into the family of Israel, or had a separation previously taken place, would have descended in the traditions of the house.

It may be said in reply, that had such a change as is mentioned occurred, it would have been mentioned by Moses, as being even more remarkable than the confusion of tongues. But we do not mean to assert that this change was effected at once. It is not the usual plan of God to effect important constitutional changes, either in men, animals or worlds, by immediate, single acts. We see changes, of a less magnitude, true, than the one in question, but indicating how great changes could be made, going on around us by a gradual progress of natural operations. We suppose, therefore, that the rudiments of the change, only, at first appeared, perhaps in no noticeable degree, and were gradually elaborated to their perfection along equally with the progress of the dispersion they were intended both to occasion and to fit men for. We do not incline at all to believe that the tired workers of Babel, after viewing the upward