subject, it follows, first, that the feelings are not independent of the intellect, or the intellect of the feelings, so that the one may be unholy, and the other indifferent, or so that the one is uninfluenced by the other. It must also follow that the feelings do not determine the intelligence, as though the latter, in matters of religion, was the mere exponent of the former. The truth is not given in the feelings, and discovered and unfolded by the intellect. The truth is objectively presented in the Word, and is by the Spirit revealed in its excellence to the intelligence, and thus the feelings are produced as necessary attributes, or adjuncts of spiritual cognition. This is not "the light system." We do not hold that the heart is changed by the mere objective presentation of the truth. The intellect and heart are not two distinct faculties, to be separately affected or separately renewed. There is a divine operation, of which the whole soul is the subject. The consequence of the change thus effected is the intuition of the truth and glory of the things of God. If this representation be correct, there must be the most perfect harmony between the feelings and the intellect; they cannot see with different eyes, or utter discordant language. What is true to the one, must be true to the other; what is good in the estimation of the one, must be good also to the other. Language, which satisfies the reason in the expression of truth, must convey the precise idea which is embraced in the glowing cognition which constitutes religious feeling; and all the utterances of emotion must justify themselves at the bar of the intellect, as expressing truth, before they can be sanctioned as venicles of the religious affections. The relation, then, between feeling and knowledge, as assumed in Scripture, and proved by experience, is utterly inconsistent with the theory of this discourse, which represents them in perpetual conflict; the one affirming our nature to be sinful, the other denying it; the one teaching the doctrine of inability, the other that of plenary power; the one craving a real vicarious punishment of sin, the other teaching that a symbolical atonement is all that is needed; the one pouring forth its fervent misconceptions in acts of devotion, and the other whispering, All that must be taken cum grano salis. We have now endeavoured to show that there is no foundation for Professor Park's theory in the use of figurative language as the expression of emotion; nor in those conflicting judgments which the mind forms of truth in its different conditions; nor in the different states of mind consequent on contemplation of truth for different objects; nor in what the Scriptures and experience teach concerning the relation between the feelings and intellect. We have further endeavoured to show that this theory is destructive of the authority of the Bible, because In it attributes to the sacred writers conflicting and irreconcilable representations. Even should we admit that the feelings and the intellect have different apprehensions, and adopt different modes of expression, yet, as the feelings of the sacred writers were excited, as well as their cognitions determined, by the Holy Spirit, the two must be in perfect harmony. unrenewed, or imperfectly sanctified, uninspired men, there might be, on the hypothesis assumed, this conflict between feeling and knowledge; but to attribute such contradictions to the Scriptures, is to deny their inspiration. Besides this, the practical operation of a theory which supposes that so large a part of the Bible is to be set aside as inexact, because the language of passion, must be to subject its teachings to the opinion and prejudices of the reader. No adequate criteria are given for discriminating between the language of feeling and that of the intellect. Every one is left to his own discretion in making the distinction, and the use of this discretion, regulated by no fixed rules of language, is of course determined by caprice or taste. But even if our objections to the theory of this discourse be deemed unsound, the arbitrary application which the author makes of his principles would be enough to condemn them. We have seen that he attributes to the feelings the most abstract propositions of scientific theology; that he does not discriminate between mere figurative language and the language of emotion; that he adopts or rejects the representations of the Bible at pleasure, or as they happen to coincide with, or contradict, his preconceived opinions. That a sentence of condemnation passed on all men for the sin of one man; that men are by nature the children of wrath; that without Christ we can do nothing; that he hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, by being made a curse for us; that men are not merely pardoned but justified, are represented as bold metaphors, impressive, but not intelligible-true to the feelings, but false to the reason. - It will be a matter of deep regret to many to find Professor Park, with his captivating talents and commanding influence, arrayed against the doctrines repudiated in this discourse; and many more will lament that he should have prepared a weapon, which may be used against one doctrine as easily as another. Our consolation is, that however keen may be the edge, or bright the polish, of that weapon, it has so little substance, it must shiver into atoms with the first blow it strikes against those sturdy trees which have stood for ages in the garden of the Lord, and whose leaves have been for the healing of the nations. ART. VIII.-1. The Natural History of Man; comprising Inquiries into the Modifying Influence of Physical and Moral Agencies on the Different Tribes of the Human Family. By JAMES COWLES PRICHARD, M.D., &c., &c. Royal 8vo, pp. 677. London: H. Bailliere. 1848. 2. The Unity of the Human Races, proved to be the Doctrine of Scripture, Reason, and Science, with a Review of the Present Position and Theory of Professor Agassiz. By the Rev. THOMAS SMYTH, D.D. 12mo, pp. 404. New York: George P. Putnam. 1850. 1850. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter. 3. The Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race Examined on the Principles of Science. By JOHN BACHMAN, D.D. 8vo, pp. 312. Charleston, S. C.: C. Canning. 1850. 4. Philological Proofs of the Original Unity and Recent Origin of the Human Race. By ARTHUR JAMES JOHNES, Esq. London: 1846. New 5. An Investigation of the Theories of the Natural History of Man. By WILLIAM FREDERIC VAN ARMINGE. York: 1848, 6. The Christian Examiner and Religious Miscellany, March 1850. On the Geographical Distribution of Animals, July 1850. On the Diversity of Origin of the Human Races. By Professor LOUIS AGASSIZ. THE question whether man may not after all be the second cousin of the monkeys, is one which most plain people will not think worthy of elaborate discussion. But as the Bible had had the temerity to assert that he is not, Voltaire and the French school of infidelity, flinging down the glove for the slandered baboons, maintained that the Bible in this, as in so many other matters, was wholly in the dark. Now, had they limited the investigation to mere researches into personal genealogy, we should not have been so impolite-either to the Frenchmen or the monkeys-as to have meddled with their family matters, but would have allowed them to settle the question of consanguinity as best pleased them. But with a magnanimity and abnegation of self highly characteristic of that school, they generously disclaim the honour of this simial relationship, and benevolently bestow it upon poor Quashee, in consideration, perhaps, of the fact that he had been somewhat neglected in their previous benefactions. Now, as neither Quashee nor the baboons were allowed to appear in the Encyclopædia, any more than the Bible or Christianity, it became necessary that others should examine their claim to the heraldic honours thus bestowed upon them by the savants of the Academy. Such was the origin of the question as to the Unity of the Human Race. The question thus raised, and discussed, at times, ever since, has recently awakened fresh interest in the scientific world. Commerce, travel, exploring expeditions, researches in natural history, and other causes, have accumulated such a mass of evidence bearing on this point, that a hope has arisen that it may speedily and finally be settled as a ruled case in science. Hence the number and ability of books and essays that have lately appeared on both sides of this question. That it is a question on which the Bible has clearly and definitely pronounced, we do not think it needful to show at any greater length than we shall necessarily do, in noticing the position of Professor Agassiz; as most of our readers are already thoroughly convinced and informed on that point. It will be more profitable to present a condensed view of the argument for the unity of the races, as a question of natural history, and, to some extent, of ethnography. In doing this, we shall draw indiscriminately on all the sources of information within our reach, without referring in each case to the precise authority on which we make our statements, or cumbering our pages with details that are appropriate only to the extended treatise. That there are varieties in the races of men of the most diverse character, is a fact that stands out palpably to universal observation. The fair-skinned, energetic Anglo-Saxon, the black-skinned, indolent Negro, and the saffron and coppercoloured races of Asia, Australia, and America, present permanent types of the widest diversities of physical characteristics. The question then arises, Are these diversities so wide and impassable as to prove that the different races of men are different species, having a different origin; or are they of such a character as only to prove that they are different varieties of the same species? Man, being an animal, under the same physical laws as to his physical economy with the lower tribes, must be considered, in discussing this question, as subjected to the same principles of classification that are adopted in other departments of animated nature. are willing, then, to submit this question as one purely of natural history, and discuss it on those principles which are recognised in that branch of natural science. We There are two great facts that characterise the actions of nature in regard to the different families of living things: the one is, the great flexibility and adaptability of the law of resemblance within certain limits; the other is, the frigid, inflexible permanence of that law beyond these limits. The final causes of these facts or laws will be obvious on a moment's reflection. The first law is essential to the very existence and advancement of human society. The earth contains many varieties of climate, soil, and surface, and the precise physical constitution adapted to one place would be very unsuitable to another. Hence, either the more useful races of animals and plants must be confined to their original locality, or a new creation must take place whenever a new country is to be settled, or there must be in organic life a power of adaptation by which it shall conform to the new circumstances in which the possessors of it may be placed. The necessities of man, however, demand that certain animals and plants should be domesticated, and trained to the various uses for which they may be needed, and that they be capable of transportation with him in his various migrations. Now, if the peculiarities of each species were unchangeable, domesticity and migration would be impossible. Therefore, to accomplish the obvious purposes of God in peopling the earth, there must be a nisus formativus in organic life, by which the various tribes of living things may be adapted to the circumstances of their position and the wants of man, and by which a stimulus may be given to the active and inventive faculties of social and civilized life. It is this fact, or tendency in organic life, which gives rise to those endless varieties of different species which we find every where existing, especially in the more settled and advanced states of society. But the second law is equally important. If this capability of variation were unlimited, the peculiarities of each species must at last be wholly obliterated. If the different species could amalgamate without limit, and produce new species, partaking of the characteristics of both races thus commingled, in process of time the existing species must become hopelessly confounded, the peculiarities that fit them for their various positions in the scale of living things be lost, and the earth become a scene of organic confusion. Indeed, had this law not been always in existence, the various species of domestic animals, at least, would long since have disappeared, and become completely blended into some strange and nondescript monstrosity, as wild as a sick man's dream. To prevent such a calamity, nature has set up an impassable barrier between the different species, so as to prevent their permanent intermixture. It is this fact that establishes the conditions of hybridity. A hybrid individual may be produced between two different species, but never a hybrid species, for the hybrid is barren, and cannot perpepetuate its kind. And although, in two or perhaps three cases (those of the buffalo and cow, the China and common goose, and some species of ducks), where the species are nearly re VOL. I.-NO. I. |