nent. Thus, in tossing aside the philological argument, he says, that it is as natural for men to talk, as it is for dogs to bark, or asses to bray, and that one bird does not learn its song from another; and hence we could not from the phenomena of language infer unity of origin. Now, if one bird does not learn its song from another, does this prove that one human being does not learn its language from another? And aside from the fact that it is not natural for dogs to bark, as they never do it in their wild state, is there no difference between an inarticulate cry, and the use of a set of conventional sounds to designate certain thoughts? Does not the one imply previous arrangement and agreement, where the sounds are the same, whilst the other does not? If we argued man's original unity from his instinctive cries, it were pertinent to refer us to the instinctive cries of animals; but when, from the fact that the same or similar collocations of syllabic sounds are applied by different races to the same natural objects, we argue that there must have been a previous agreement that these sounds should designate these objects, the reference to the braying of asses, &c., looks really like trifling.

But his exegesis is as curious as his logic. He asserts triumphantly, that the Bible is solely an account of the white race, and makes no reference at all to the other, and, as he terms them, the non-historical races. We would be glad to know how he has discovered that Adam and Noah belonged to the white race at all. The best critics have been unable to discover any evidence for it from Scripture; and scientific grounds, we are disposed to think, indicate the primitive type as intermediate between the white and the black. But, however this may be, the assertion that the Bible sanctions the original plurality of the races is amazing. Is it not expressly affirmed, that before the creation of Adam there was not a man to till the ground? That when he was created, man (the generic term always used to denote the whole human race) was created? That he was the head of the human race-the one by whom sin and death entered the world? If then the non-historical races sin and die, have they not these proofs of their connection with Adam? Is not Eve called the mother of all living? And did Moses know of no other living races but the white one? Does he not expressly declare (Deut. xxxii. 8,) that the divided nations of the earth are the sons of Adam? Does he not refer the Ethiopian and Egyptian races to Noah through his sons Cush and Mizraim? Is not the physical characteristic of the Cushite unequivocally intimated when it is said that he cannot change his skin? Did not Christ expressly endorse this when he taught monogamy from the original unity of the race in Adam and Eve; and when, to fulfil the prophecies respecting

Ethiopia, China, (Sinim,) and the islands of the Sea, he commanded his disciples to go and preach the Gospel to every creature? And can words declare it, if Paul's did not, when in opposition to the Athenian doctrine of a separate, autochthonal creation for Attica, he declares that God has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the whole earth? Is not the entire Bible-teaching about sin, the moral government of God, the fall of man, and redemption in Christ, based on this assumption? If we exclude the non-historic races from all connection with Adam, must we not, by the express language of Paul ("as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,") also exclude them from all connection with Christ? And if, on the contrary, they are expressly affirmed to be connected with Christ, does not this also affirm their connection with Adam? Must not a cause that requires such exegesis as this be pressed for support?

That Professor Agassiz was aware how wide and deep was the sweep of his views, is apparent from his fling at mock philanthropy; his assertion of the original and necessary inferiority of the African race; his avowed inability to decide what is the best education that can be given them; and his magisterial denunciation of the injudiciousness of the attempt to force the peculiarities of our present white civilization on all the nations of the world. The plain meaning of all this is, that the benevolent and missionary operations of the church, in their application to any other than the white race, are foolish and futile attempts to traverse the immutable ordinations of the Creator.

We cannot trust ourselves to speak of sentiments like these as perhaps they really deserve. There is something in this cold-blooded and haughty assignment of more than half the human race to a doom of hopeless, irreversible degradation, for time and eternity, and this by the very act and arrangement of their original creation, from which the Christian heart recoils with indignation and disgust. We thank God that the nations sitting in darkness are not left to the tender mercies of human philosophy, and that its endorsement is not needed to warrant us to go forth into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

And we know of no more unanswerable argument for the absolute unity of the race than that furnished by the very phenomena that call for and warrant the efforts so sneeringly decried by the learned Professor! Alas! the same sad proofs of brotherhood in sin and sorrow, of common parentage and common fall, of depravity transmitted by universal and hereditary taint, meet us in every race. The same wail of remorseful sorrow comes up in mysterious plaint from all;

the same mournful memories of primeval purity now soiled and dishonoured; the same gleaming visions of an Eden innocence that has faded away, leaving only these mute longings after its unforgotten brightness; the same dire and terrific phantoms of guilt that come forth to awe and affright; the same deep yearnings after the unseen and the eternal in the soul's deepest stirrings; and the same sublime hopes that shoot upward to the "high and terrible crystal,”—are found alike in every race of every hue. The unspeakable gift of Christ and him crucified, is as wide in its efficacy as these mournful symptoms of malady. The lofty intellects of a Pascal and a Newton do not grasp it with a keener relish and a deeper sympathy than the besotted Caffre in the lonely wilds of Africa, or the crouching Pariah in the steaming jungles of India. The Cross is that wondrous talisman that calls forth from every adventitious guise the universal manhood and brotherhood of the races. And when the lowliest African is "born again" in that heavenly birth that links into a new and holier unity the fallen descendants of the first Adam, he is found to exult with as pure a gladness as the honoured heir of the proudest and noblest blood. O! it is this blessed fact that stands in lofty and indignant rebuke of that cold and cruel philosophy, that would wrest from the humble and the oppressed the only boon that is beyond the grasp of an unfeeling avarice. It is for this reason that we contend so earnestly against this vamping up of the old infidel theories of Voltaire. It is because we believe that its general reception will not only undermine the authority of the Bible, but also cut the sinews of the noblest charities, and the purest pieties, of our age; sink the unfortunate and degraded into a deeper and more hopeless degradation; give a plausible plea to cruelty and avarice to rivet tighter the fetters of oppression, and fling a pall of despairing gloom over the brightest visions of the future, unfolded on the canvas of prophecy; it is for these reasons that we oppose the theory with such earnestness and warmth.

But having shown, as we think unanswerably, that the old and admitted principles of natural history require us to regard the varieties of the human race as belonging to the same species, and having shown that the last and most ingenious evasion of this argument is an utter failure, we may sit down content with what the Word of God has clearly asserted, and the vast majority of the first naturalists of the world have believed that men were not the offspring of diverse origins, but that God has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the whole earth.

THE

FOREIGN EVANGELICAL REVIEW.

AUGUST 1852.

ART. I.-The Philosophy of Religion. By J. D. MORELL, A. M., Author of the History of Modern Philosophy, &c. London and New York.

THE relation of philosophy to religion is one of those problems that it would seem each age must work out for itself. Whether the equation is really indeterminate, or whether we must wait for some more potent analysis than has hitherto been discovered, we cannot tell; but the fact stands palpably out, that every age has made the effort, and, by the demonstration of the age that followed it, has signally failed. That this failure occurred among the sages of Persia and India, and the yet loftier speculators of the Porch and the Academy, is a matter that cannot excite our surprise, for both philosophy and religion were yet in their infancy; and men at once dogmatized on an unknown science, and worshipped an unknown God. But we would naturally suppose, that after "life and immortality" had been brought to light in the gospel, a clearer conception of the relation of these great departments of thought would be attained. In this supposition, however, we are sadly mistaken. The Gnostic, the Neo-Platonist, the Scholastic, the Cartesian, and the successive schools of England, France, and Germany, have in turn shouted the joyful spnxa, only to have it triumphantly proved by the school which succeeded, that a fatal fallacy existed in the analysis, and that the problem was yet unsolved.

The appearance of Mr Morell's History of Speculative Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century, was greeted with no little satisfaction by the thinking world. Much of this satisfaction was produced by the novelty of the field that was opened up, and the clear, transparent style in which the

VOL. I.-NO. II.

૨

crabbed technicalities of German metaphysics were explained to the mere English scholar. And Mr Morell evinced, in that work, much good sense, as well as a fair acquaintance with the course of modern philosophy. There was also an apparent reverence for Christianity-a quality so rare in those who make extensive excursions in this field, that it was doubly welcome in one who had explored it so widely.

But, at the same time, his manner of treating some of the fundamental doctrines of natural religion, gave rise to suspicion that he entertained views of Christianity at variance with the common opinions on the subject. These suspicions were confirmed by his "Lectures on the Philosophical Tendencies of the Age," in which he discussed the philosophic doctrines of Positivism, of Individualism, of Traditionalism, and of Common Sense. In these discussions he developed some opinions that paved the way for those he has since avowed.

Yet, notwithstanding these indications, high hopes were felt that this contribution to the Philosophy of Religion would throw very important light on this difficult subject. The writer had been brought up at the feet of Wardlaw; his early training had been gained in the clear school of the Scotch metaphysics; his recent investigations had familiarized him with the profoundest investigations of modern times; and it was hoped that he combined in his own case the elements necessary for a solution of the high problems contained in the philosophy of religion.

It was, we honestly confess, with such feelings as these that we eagerly seized the volume before us. We hoped that now, at least, we should find an interpreter between the old Christianity and the new metaphysics; one who thoroughly understood the language, and partook of the spirit, of both; and who, possessing somewhat of the confidence of each, could mediate between them, and show us the nexus by which they are connected in the great circle of truth.

Our hopes were somewhat damped by the preface, and sunk lower and lower as we proceeded in the perusal of the work, until we laid it down, at the conclusion, with sadness of heart; feeling that, if these great problems are soluble at all, this effort, at least, had failed to solve them. We do not mean to bring any railing accusations against Mr Morell, or to call him by any of the hard names he repudiates with so much spirit in his preface: nor do we mean to. undervalue the wonderful contributions made by German intellect to the knowledge of the world. But our deliberate judgment is, that instead of this work being the philosophy of religion, it is philosophy versus religion; and that if we adopt the principles here avowed, we must choose between our metaphysics.